overstock person, i don't think any of these people were providing the president with good advice. >> team normals top lawyer finally come to terms with reality. >> can you give a direct answer, will you accept the election? >> i have to see. i have to see. >> tonight, committee member jimmy raskin on pat cipollone's revolution, and trump's culpability for all of it. >> president trump is a 76-year-old man, he is not an impressionable child. >> then, why trump's lawyers think that mark meadows is going down. one of the reporters who broke that story joins me live, and it was a rough day for a couple of other trump royal figures. trying to stay out of court. >> why is the senator of south carolina calling the secretary of georgia anyway? >> all in starts right now. good evening from new york, i'm chris hayes.

we finally got to hear from donald trump's white house counsel, pat cipollone. on friday, you might remember, he spoke to the january 6th committee behind closed doors for hours. and then at yesterday's hearing, the committee revealed several clips of his videotaped interviews. we are going to play some of that shortly. cipollone's testimony, as far as we can tell, conformed with the broader picture that we have now gathered for many witnesses. donald trump was dead set on staying in office, against the will of the american people, by any means necessary. cipollone was among those in trump's orbit that resisted those efforts in the final days of trump's term in office. now, just ate the obvious, it is a very good thing that people like pat cipollone, and bill barr, and others around donald trump resisted his attempted coup. part of the story that they are telling about how the

insurrection came to be, is, i think, wildly misleading. and actually, i have to say, kind of it ranging. liz cheney clearly feels the same way. >> now the argument seems to be that the president trump was manipulated by others outside of the administration. he was persuaded to ignore his closest advisors, and that he was incapable of telling right from wrong. the strategy is to blame people, his advisers called quote, the crazies. what donald trump did. this, of course, is nonsense. president trump is a 76-year-old man, he is not an impressionable young child. just like everyone else in our country, he is responsible for his own actions, and his own choices. >> liz cheney said that for a reason. she recognized, i think, a common theme in the testimony for trump insiders who had submitted to the lawful subpoenas of this committee. many of them have clearly been attempting to salvage their own

reputations, and to try to exonerate themselves from their complicity in the most severe potential attack on american democracy since the civil war. and they have been doing that by basically blaming the entire thing on a group of so-called, as she said, crazies. as trump campaign manager bill stepien put, it there is team normal, like pat cipollone and bill barr, and then there was team not normal. made up of people like rudy giuliani, sydney powell, mike flynn, and the overstock guy. we heard the same derision from pat cipollone yesterday, when he derives -- the ragtag group of coup plotters, who made their way to the white house for an unscheduled meeting in the residence in december of 2020. >> i opened the door, and i walked in, i saw general flynn, sydney powell sitting there. i was not happy to see the people who are in the oval office.

>> explain why. >> well, again, i don't think they were providing -- well, first of all, the overstock person, i've never met, i never knew who this guy was. actually, the first thing i did, i walked in, i looked at him, and i said, who are you? he told me. i don't think any of these people were providing the president with good advice. >> cipollone was equally scornful about the pro coup teams plan, to have the federal government seize voting machines. >> it's a terrible idea. that's not how we do things in the united states, there's no legal authority in that, and there is a way to contest elections. you know, that happens all the time. but the idea that the federal government could come in and seize election machines? no, that's -- i don't understand why we even have to tell you why that's about idea for the country, it's a terrible idea.

>> cipollone also telling the committee that the group had no evidence to support the claims of fraud, and basically did not believe in facts. >> what response did you get when you asked miss powell and her colleagues? >> a variety of responses based on my current recollection, including -- i can't believe you would say something, things like this, where is the evidence? you should know. you know, things like that, or a disregard i would say, a general disregard for the importance of actually backing up would you say with facts. >> oh, really? a disregard for backing of things you say with facts? that was the point that i almost threw something at the tv.

pat, buddy, bro, my man, do you know who you worked for? do you realize who employed you? the guy at the bus, the big guy, donald trump. you worked for donald trump. the most serial liar to ever occupy the oval office. the most pathological liar that i have ever covered in 20 years of journalism. and the people assembled in that room together on january 17th, where there to overturn american democracy and declare himself essentially president for life, and keep himself in power. you are either stupid, disqualified, or incompetence and you would never hold because donald trump was not shy about the fact that he would never accept an election loss, he was quite public about it. he said it before he took office back in 2016. do you make the same commitment that you absolutely, sir, that you will absolutely accept the results of this election? >> i will look at at the time. i'm not looking at anything, now i will look at it at the time. >> theof power

and no matter how far flooded campaign, is that the end of the campaign, that the loser can seat to the winner, not saying that you are necessarily gonna be the loser or the winner, but the loser can seize to the winner, and the country comes together in part for the good of the country. are you saying you are not prepared to? >> what i'm saying is that i will tell you at the time. i will keep you in suspense. >> after he won an electoral college, but lost the popular vote, by more than 2. 8 million votes, donald trump claims immediately that the election was rigged. remember that? he tweeted quote, in addition to winning the electoral college in a landslide, i won the popular vote, if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally. that sort of seems like it's a disregard for facts and using facts to back up what you say. don't you think? and just a few months, into his first term, we all look through this. trump launched a commission, using the powerful federal government, to look into his ludicrous baseless, claims of voter fraud. and of course, they found nothing because they were just generated out of dinner. that didn't stop him from doing the exact same thing.

in the run up to the 2020 election. months before election day, trump was already planning the idea that there would be widespread fraud. >> we have to win the election, we can't play games, get out and vote, do those beautiful absentee ballots, or just make sure you vote gets counted. make sure because the only way we are gonna lose this election is if the election is rigged, remember that. it's the only way we are gonna lose this election. >> okay i want to make sure, he said that time and time again. the only way we lose is if it's rigged. so there's two options, either i'm elected, or, it's rigged, either way i win. that's what he set up. that's what he said time and time again. and then, once again, just as he did back in 2016, he refused to say he would accept the results if it were defeat. >> i think mail-in voting is gonna rig the election. i really do. >> are you suggesting that you might not accept the results of

the election? >> i have to say, look, hillary clinton asked me the same thing. >> no i ask you the same thing at the debate. >> and you know, what's she is the one that never accepted it. she never accepted her lost. >> but can you give a direct answer, you will accept the election? >> i have to see. look, see i'm not just gonna say yes, i'm not gonna say no, and i didn't last time either. >> so pets up a lonely sitting in that, room december 18th, with this ragtag group of crazies, and he's like whoa, how did i get here? this is so nuts. they don't seem to believe in facts. that's donald trump's position at the elections. pretty god damn consistant. from 2015 to 2016, to 2020. donald trump gets around the country, he wins, forever, in every election, because either he wins against more votes, or he doesn't, and get stays in power anyways because it's rigged. it was obvious to anyone with a

brain cell paying attention over the past several years. pat. time and time again, trump said out loud. publicly. on national television. and just because some people, like pat cipollone, who again, defended the president, works for the president, help them get his agenda done, just because pat saponi lied to himself, and collaborated with this monstrous sociopath who almost ended american democracy, does it mean it was a hard thing to see. that does not mean it was a bad advice that resulted in donald trump almost leading in person, a fascist coup, to sack the capital. a coup was the plan from the beginning. it was either victory or a coup. those were the two options. donald trump lauded it more or less out in the open. and all of the allegations of voter fraud, ludicrous, you know viral conspiracy theories, the constitutional loopholes, they try to exploit, they were just pretext for the coup.

the coup was, donald trump wins. because that is what he believes donald trump is owed. there is something deeply raging about watching all of these supposedly, serious, and well credential, smart, ethical people, to normal people, the professionals, the adult in the rooms who did the right thing and counseled donald trump the right way. being so disturbed. and aghast. and bewilder. and surprise. that it turned out the waited. that the alleged facts and the election were not really there. the president was trying to do something illegal. with these weirdos. of course he was! it's a good thing they realized it at the very end. but it's a bad thing it took them so darn long. the big question is if this pattern of bizarrely willful blindness to the obvious truth is right now repeating itself at the department of justice. top officials are reportedly just jolted into discussing

donald trump's conduct more openly, following cassidy hutchinson's explosive testimony. >> congressman jamie raskin, serves on the january six committee, he's one of the leads in yesterday's hearing, and he joins me now. congressman, first just on the note that i started the show on, i wonder if you also noticed the sort of strange willful naive attained that is coming from some of the people in the inner circle, who are giving i think for fronts and truthful testimony, but i wonder if do you think they really didn't see what was happening until they did? >> well that is a tough question of personal psychology for each of these people. but i am with you that we have seen somewhat depreciated the meaning of hero is m. when we call someone a hero, just for not participating in a violent insurrection. or not supporting the efforts

of a coup'd to overthrow an election. that's really the least we should be expecting a public officials, we should be asking these people actually, to blow the whistle publicly. they could've gotten in touch with senator mcconnell, they could've gotten in touch with speaker pelosi. they could have gone to the newspapers and tv to say, there is something very troubling happening here. i think that we may be hearing some more people about people who actually try to do that. i think, one thing that was a little underplayed yesterday, which i hope will get more attention, chris, is this employee, at twitter, who was effectively whistleblower for democracy, who was saying that in their estimation, there was going to be a nightmarish cataclysmic, events, a violence, and they could have not really move twitter to do anything about it. therefore they were not able to bring it to broader public attention. so that is another one of the things that our committee is going to have to consider with just the extraordinary power of the internet to convey ideas and to convey facts and to convey logistics.

what do we do about people who use it for the most dangerous purposes possible? >> yeah i was struck by that as well, and to me, if it with a whole line of evidence that has been presented by the committee. which is different people having some form, some knowledge, some, in some sense of what this is all going. even as people on the outside didn't really or fail to appreciate it. but people on the inside up to an including, stop the steal organizer, ali oleksandr, texting about the president's gonna have to go to the capitol. it was pretty known in certain circles. >> yeah, and, i mean certainly

those people who are the fbi and law enforcement community, should have been able to put all of these close together. now none of that is to excuse and then a way what's trump's mob did. with the domestic violent extremist groups did. or trump's efforts to force pence to nullify electoral college votes in this coup. we don't want to be in a situation where we are blaming the victim. but that is obviously one of the things that we have to look at going forward, what are the early warning systems that we can put into place? and then how do we fortify ourselves in terms of our electoral institutions or political institutions, against coups and insurrections, and political violence going forward? >> i want to ask a question about pat cipollone and his testimony, i'll play a clip for you. it was clear, and they are

several moments shown in the videotape of his deposition, where he doesn't want to tread on what he views as privileged conversations with the president. i want to play you an example and then ask a question, take a listen. >> were any steps taken including the president himself, telling her she had been appointed. >> again, i am not gonna get to with the president said, in the meeting. my recollection is, you are not appointed until steps are taken. get the paperwork done, and when i left the meeting, okay, i guess, i guess what i'm trying to say is, i'm not gonna get into what the president said, or said he wanted. >> so you can ask a follow-up question, about the deep pile being appointed special counsel. well sydney powell think that she got appointed? and i want to help privilege concern was in mississippi alone's testimony? >> well mister saponi you know, in fairness to him, was based on the idea that he did not

want to communicate any information about conversations he had with the president, advising the president about the execution of his duties. and i think that he was sincere in a advance in that view but he was willing to testify about other kinds of conversations that took place. i mean it seems clear to me from all of that evidence that we have received that trump did try to anoint or appoint sydney powell, special counsel, which was a perfectly ambiguous description of her role. it's not even clear whether that meant in the white house, or in the department of justice, or roving in the executive branch, but it seems that trump imagine that she would've had the power to seize election machinery, and swing states. and then initiate criminal prosecutions of people that they saw as getting in their way just to show you how

extreme this was. this was very much banana republic stuff. i did by mr. cipollone's suggestion that well, it wasn't a real appointment because there are other people paperwork that you have to go through. other it's him using given the trump administration's general advocacy of the unitary executive theory, which is that, to c'est moi, and the minute that the president does say something, then that is the law. so certainly city pasta that she had been appointed on that day, when donald trump said make it so. >> yeah i also say, there's something really relate-able about that testimony for anyone who was oh worked or had a boss, the power of the yes boss, right on a boss. that was -- a and then you just forget about it. in this case, a good deployment of that strategy, congressman jamie raskin, thank you very much. >> you bet. >> still ahead, new trouble for trump's old chief of staff, even when the justice

department has declined to charge mark meadows with contempt of congress. at least thus far. the attorneys in trump world apparently think that meadows will be the fall guy for january six, the reporter who broke that news, and it's fascinating, joins me next.

psst. girl. you can do better. ok. wow. i'm right here. and you can do better, too. at least with your big name wireless carrier. with xfinity mobile, you can get unlimited for $30 per month on the nation's most reliable 5g network. they can even save you hundreds a year on your wireless bill, over t-mobile, at&t and verizon. wow. i can do better. yes, you can. i can do better, too. break free from the big three and switch to xfinity mobile. 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. miss hutchinson, the white house chief of staff, did mark meadows, ever indicate that he was interested in receiving a presidential pardon related to january 6th? >> mr. meadows did seek that pardon, yes, ma'am. >> as we've seen, the january

6th committee hearings the chief of staff mark meadows was a key figure in the plot, and execution of the attempted coup. we know that as evidenced by his apparent pardon request, he was aware of his own legal jeopardy. new reporting from the rolling stone suggests that his legal troubles was worse that we knew, saying that quote, trump's inner circle increasingly views meadows as a likely fall guy for the former presidents attempts to overturn the 2020 election. members of trump's legal dream are actively planning certain strategies around meadows downfall, including possible criminal charges. one of the reporters they broke that story joins me now. austin, what did you learn? >> an important bit of context for this recording is that the trump world based hunt for a patsy or scapegoat when it comes to january 6th and the events surrounding it are in full swing. if you talk to people on donald

trump's legal team and his inner legal and political circle, they will tell you with every breath that they can draw about people that they think whose fault it is. again, we are going to get to the point later that this was essentially all donald trump's fault. when it comes to the rudy giuliani's of the world, the jeffrey clark's, the johnny eastman's of the world. and nowadays, the mark meadows of the world. they talk about how these guys have a lot of criminal exposure, and look at what they did. to a certain extent, they have a point, however bad faith it is in. these guys do have a lot of potential criminal exposure, and when it comes to mark meadows, when it comes to what the department of justice and or the january 6th committee on capitol hill are looking into. it's actually more multifaceted than they are letting on right now when it comes to what is going on in public. we reported at rolling stone today that the january 6th committee has been grilling multiple witnesses, but mark

meadows is financing. his financial agreements and secret arrangements for other trump advisers as it pertained to trying to overturn the 2020 election. witnesses came away from this with the clear impression that investigators on the committee were looking for clues, and or evidence of illegality or misconduct. and so there you have it, his problems could be even deeper than what is publicly revealing at this point. >> the thing about this, and i've seen some similar things they have said about eastman. eastman and clark clearly are in some trouble. they have had search warrants executed by the federal government against them. not a great place to be, i would not be siked if the fbi showed up at my house well it is in my pajamas and took my phones. that is pretty clear. meadows is not there yet, it's a little foolhardy to think that the doj builds cases against these people and then that takes the heat off of

trump. it seems the opposite to me. >> absolutely. and no matter how much trump's attorneys and advisers are pricing this into their legal or public relations strategies, try to do everything that they can to protect the big guy. there is not any good faith or objective standard by which you can ensnare legally somebody like mark meadows or john eastman. and not directly implicate donald trump. they were only doing these things because trump ordered them to, and wanted them to, and told them to. and he stayed updated regularly on exactly what they were doing. it is as if there were reams upon reams of news footage of ronald reagan during the other iran scandal, yelling at george h. w. bush about, why aren't you doing the iran contra scandal harder? you must hate trump if you're not doing the iran scandal so

hard. you are failing me. it is baffling that anybody can actually think that you can get a scapegoat without immediately implicating donald trump as the very next measure. >> and meadows, you're reporting and that question from the committee. i would be nervous if i were him, particularly post-cassidy hutchinson. we are going to be seeing how that plays out, as always, asawin suebsaeng, great reporting, thank you so much. >> thank you. >> still to come, senator lindsey graham is a quote, necessary material witness, so says a fulton county judge who ordered graham to appear before the grand jury investigating election fraud. that full story, next. election fraud that full story, next. d 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

out if your policy qualifies. or call the number on your screen. coventry direct, redefining insurance.

i was injured in a car crash. i had no idea how much my case was worth. i called the barnes firm. >> can you clarify this when a truck hit my son, i had so many questions about his case. i called the barnes firm. it was the best call i could've made. your case is often worth more than insuran call the barnes firm to find out i could've made. what your case could be worth. we will help get you the best result possible. ♪ the barnes firm, injury attorneys

♪ call one eight hundred,est resul eight million ♪ conversation you are having with the secretary of state in georgia, did you or did you not ask him to throw out votes? >> no that is ridiculous. i told him how to verify signatures. >> why is this senator of south carolina calling the secretary of georgia anyways? >> because the future of the country relies on the ballots. >> it is wasy to forget that lindsey graham was also one of the people helping donald trump explore ways to overturn the 2020 election. at least in the early going. just remember days after the election, graham tried to race ballots about signature matches, he reached out to officials in arizona and nevada, and georgia, where he spoke directly to the secretary of state brad raffensperger, and because of

that graham is now subject to a subpoena from the fulton county district attorney, who empaneled a special grand jury to investigate and i quote, coordinated attempts to unlawfully alter the outcome of the 2020 election in georgia. now there is a fair amount of public evidence of interference, most notoriously of course, the january phone call where trump called raffensperger and asked him to find the 11,780 votes trump needed to win georgia. last week, graham's attorneys slammed the subpoena saying quote, this is all politics, fulton county is engaged in a fishing expedition and working in concert with the january six committee. amazingly, that statement was released at the very same moment that nbc news correspondent, blame alexander, was actually interviewing fulton county da, fani willis, she got to respond senator graham's accusations and we'll time. >> inaccurate, estimation. it's someone who doesn't understand the seriousness of what we are doing. i hope they don't come and

testify truthfully in front of gradually. >> i thought people thought that we came into this as some kind of game. this is not a game at all. what i am doing is very serious. it's very important work, and we are going to do our due diligence and making sure that we look at all aspects of the case. >> on monday, a judge in georgia senator graham to appear in front of the grand jury, calling him a quote, necessary and material witness. but graham asked a federal court to block that subpoena, a judge disagreed with him at least temporarily, and put a stay on the subpoena until a hearing next week. now there has been this tortures process for years of watching trump, and people around him, kind of wriggle out from under legal accountability, either they define congress, or just delaying long enough. but it would do well for senator graham to remember,

steve bannon, it goes to trial next week for his contempt of congress charges after a judge rejected all his defenses. bannon is now staring down the possibility of jail time. so if i was lindsey graham, i wouldn't be so sure about escaping accountability indefinitely. indefinitely ♪ ♪ away suitcases are designed with 360-degree spinner wheels. ♪ ♪

so you can go with the flow. ♪ ♪

i'm jonathan lawson here to tell you about life insurance so you can go with the flow. through the colonial penn program. if you're age 50 to 85, and looking to buy life insurance on a fixed budget, remember the three ps. what are the three ps? the three ps of life insurance on a fixed budget are price, price, and price. a price you can afford, a price that can't increase, and a price that fits your budget. i'm 54, what's my price? you can get coverage for $9.95 a month. i'm 65 and take medications. what's my price? also $9.95 a month. i just turned 80, what's my price? $9.95 a month for you too. if you're age 50 to 85, call now about the #1 most popular whole life insurance plan

available through the colonial penn program. it has an affordable rate starting at $9.95 a month. no medical exam, no health questions. your acceptance is guaranteed. and this plan has a guaranteed lifetime rate lock so your rate can never go up for any reason. so call now for free information and you'll also get this free beneficiary planner. and it's yours free just for calling. so call now for free information. and one more item. after our last hearing, president trump tried to call a witness in our investigation. a witness that you have not yet seen in these hearings. that person declined to answer or respond to president trump's call.

instead, they alerted their lawyer to the call. their lawyer alerted us. and this committee has supplied that information to the department of justice. let me say one more time, we will take any efforts to influence witness testimony very seriously. >> you can now add witness tampering to the long list of potential crimes now attached to the name of former president donald trump. the january 6th committee cannot charge them with any but of course the justice department could. we'll talk about where that might stand. attorney and fbi special agent, and former u.s. attorney and formal deputy assistant attorney general at the department of justice. it's great to have you both. let's start a little bit, asha, with this witness tampering. this is the second hearing in a row where liz cheney ends with a very stern warning to those who might want to tamper with

witnesses. what do you make of it? >> well, chris, witness tampering is a stand-alone crime. i think that is the big takeaway, is that it really doesn't matter anything else that happens with regard to january 6th. all of these types of process crimes, obstruction, witness tampering, all of these things. if they occur, it can happen independently. i think this goes to the bigger question of what is the department of justice going to do about it? i think that we can fairly characterized the federal criminal code as donald trump's bucket list. we can play this parlor game of how many crimes has he committed? is there obstruction, some treason, some fraud? and election campaign finance. none of this matters if it is not going to be actively investigated. i think that that is the question.

the charge is really the end of it. the threshold for even investigating is very low. i think that the question is, have they even started that process on any of these fronts? including the ones that the committee is now referring to them like the witness tampering. >> this is, asha, raises the question at the center of all of this. harry, i don't think you need to read between the lies to see the frustration of the committee. i think it's very clear. they feel like they are laying this out for the department of justice, but this is clearly criminal conduct. i should say, and asha and chuck rosenberg said, last time, there are different standards here. the committee is not an adversarial process. it does not have the federal rules of criminal procedure in terms of what could be entered into evidence. all of that stuff. they are not doing the thing. it also seems like i saw this story, and i want to get your response to this. hutchinson testimony jolts justice department to discuss trump's conduct more openly.

i felt like it was pat cipollone, like guys, what are we doing here? you should be watching my show, i don't know why we need this testimony. >> first of all, i was totally write about this parlor game. we can go to a dozen. the justice -- the obstruction is very interesting, because on freestanding, this means that you could bring a charge against meadows from last week, and not see it against trump. it could be an immediate pole vaulting through the process, and really apply leverage, which is what you want if somebody can talk to trump. but look, it did jolt them, but we talked about this last. time it jolted them because it took trump's attentional responsibility from knowing and impairing a proceeding, to involvement with violence. and that brings into play, a half dozen crimes on the federal criminal code. they are very serious ones. the most -- one question here is, not simply wet fits into the parlor game, but what will the american people support in a corollary -- if you shoot the king, you

better get him. we want to charge that really captures what people will say happened. seditious conspiracy is the biggest one that they are pointing to, but i just want to say. the committee today has not stitched that up, because they have not stitched up the agreement which is so important. plenty of evidence that they have brought forward that there was such an agreement -- we have been in the day before, all hell is going to break loose. we have actual terrorists changing their behavior on the fourth. we have trump upset, he wants to be in the capitol, because he wants to lead the actual violence, not just simply aware of, it but actually orchestrated. all of that comes with a kissing distance of a seditious conspiracy charge. all of these, to generalize,

have potential political defenses on the other side, and it is very important to get the right one not simply as a matter of proof, but as a matter of social acceptance. i think there is every reason to think that they are seditious lee working their way through and we'll do just that process with trump, with the asterisk of, will they do anything with this obstruction charge? to jump-start and go in another direction. this is the big game, and seditious conspiracy is the end of the rainbow, but there are other steps in between that they could be taking. >> there is other possible charges, but there is a technical question before we get into that. it's like, this is almost a bureaucratic question. is there basically an investigation opened? is there a case file with donald trump's name on it to

oversimplify? and it is not clear that that is the case. again, people have been calling this forever. the factual predicate needed to do that seems to have been passed. right? >> thank you, chris. you just hit the nail on the head. listen, even if it was working their way up, all of these threats, the fake elector scheme, the proud boys and oath keepers. eastman and clark. all of these roads should have been converging and coming to trump to lead to at least some information or allegation, or articulable fact, as you said. it's a very low threshold. with that means is that we are going to look into this fall further. there was evidence, chris, i

had this raffensperger phone call. we all listened to this. i feel like i'm in the twilight zone. if you called an election official and asked him to find fake votes, i'm pretty sure that the fbi would open an investigation on you. same thing with watching him send a lunatic mob to the capitol. it's hard for me to understand how they are only now being jolted to even talk about criminal liability, and this brings me to really feeling like there is a stage when the department of justice should announce whether trump is under investigation. i know that we say a lot that they don't comment on investigations, but actually, they do. there are exceptions to this in three circumstances. number one, if a matter has received a lot of publicity. check. number two, if the public needs to be reassured that the matter is being investigated appropriately. check. number three, if it is necessary to protect the public 's well-being and safety. in this case, we had five people killed. i would say, check. they need to say something. >> that's really important. unfortunately, i have to go, but i'm going to have you back. we'll talk more about this. >> they don't have the, number they're already investigating. >> asha, harry, thank you both,

i appreciate it. still ahead, how the wright keeps trying to cover up the very real consequences for actual children in post rural america. that's next. that's next.

for decades, the question of whether or not abortion in the case of rape or incest should be legal, has mostly been a thought experiment, or pulling question. because a tested the most extreme limits of peoples opposition. the polling continues to show that overwhelming majorities of people, believe that women or girls, who are the victims of rape or incest, should be able to secure an abortion. on june 24th, the day the supreme court overturned roe v. wade, that stopped being a thought experiment. or polling question, and it became a reality. and it became a question of when. because it was always going to happen. exactly a week after the

decision, this report about people having to cross the state lines to get an abortion appeared in the indianapolis star. and continue the story about a good indianapolis doctor who took a call from a child abuse doctor in ohio. this doctor had a ten year old patient in the office who was six weeks and three days pregnant. and the ten year old girl had to travel from ohio to indiana to get an abortion because after the supreme court ruling, ohio had immediately outlawed any abortion after six weeks. this was a story with a single source, the indiana ob/gyn, who talk to a reporter, and so, some skepticism is fair. sometimes reporting is wrong. now we reported that the story had been reported on this program because it seemed credible, it was a firsthand account, even if it was anonymous. it also illuminated the very real world consequences of the legal regime produced by this supreme courts. which is a world where ten year olds are forced to carry the rapist's child to term unless they can get out of state. the story was also the

centerpiece of president biden's remarks on friday, announcing an executive order to help protect reproductive rights. >> imagine being that little girl. i'm serious, just imagine being that little girl? ten years old! does anyone believe it's ohio's majority view that that should not be able to be dealt with? or in any other state in the nation? >> there then came a sustained effort from the right to discredit this story. monday, on fox news, jessie waters did a lengthy segment way question the accuracy of the story. the truthfulness of the doctor, and the modus of the people drawing attention to it. >> primetime decided to investigate this alleged child rape. but we quickly found out that authorities in ohio haven't even begun a criminal investigation into the rape. this doesn't make any sense. no one reported this child rape to law enforcement? but if this horrific story

isn't accurate, and the abortion doctor and the indianapolis star are misleading us? and the mainstream media and the president of the united states seeking another hoax? this is absolutely shameful. all they decided to investigate. >> yeah they investigated real good. waters also interviewed a house republican attorney general, david, sitting attorney general, that came on the program, like many on the, right to attempt to escape the implications of his own state and policy preferences. >> have you had anybody come to you in your state to say, we are looking into this? police report was filed? >> not a whisper. and we work closely with the decentralized law enforcement system in ohio, but we have regular contact with prosecutors and the local police and sheriffs, not a whisper anywhere.

>> those comments by him, set off a feeding frenzy on the, right fox news, ran several segments, criticizing biden, and it media talking about the story. a republican congressman jim jordan of ohio tweeted quote, another lie, anyone surprise? tucker carlson said the story turned out not to be true. the far-right editorial board of wall street journal published an op-ed glibly titled, an abortion story too good to confirm. even more reputable outlets picked up on it. washington post fact checker, glenn cutler, cued by the reaction right, sort of questioning the monstrous reality of the story, titled, a one source story about a ten year old and an abortion goes viral. a lot of people criticize the indianapolis star reporting but it does not seem like many spent a lot of resources trying to confirm it. you will never guess what the star reported today. quote, a man has been charged with raping a ten year old girl ohio girl, who has traveled to indiana to seek an abortion, attracted international attention, following the supreme court's decision to

overturn roe v. wade. the man was arrested tuesday after police say he admitted to raping the child on at least two occasions. police arrested the person confessed to this monstrous crime. of course it was hard to get anyone on the record because the victim is a ten year old girl whose privacy must be protected at all costs. and the story was exactly what it looked like. jim jordan did quietly delete his tweet calling the story a lie. but we now live in a country where, thanks to the republican party, and the six far-right justices, we now force rape victims, even children aged ten, to give birth unless they are lucky enough to flee to another state. and even that is going to get harder and harder. republicans in indiana with a girl was able to get an abortion, are working to outlaw abortions there as well. the star also reported today that quote, columbus police

were made aware of the girl's pregnancy through a rough wall block franklin county children services, that was made by her mother on june 22nd. the decision to overturn roe was announced two days later on june 24th. when the girl's mother began the process of helping her ten year old daughter. she could've gotten an abortion in ohio. it wasn't until those justices on the court wrote their decision that this child, who had been raped, had to flee across state lines like she was the criminal. there is an enormous unfathomable human tragedy at the center of the story, thank god this ten year old girl did not have to carry the pregnancy to term. and let's be clear eyed about what the antiabortion republican party wants. they want a world in which that child would be forced to carry her rapist's baby. and that is the world and the

country they are making. that is all in on this wednesday night. msnbc prime starts right now with ali velshi. good evening ali. >> it is worth underscoring the efforts that people went to to undermine that story, and they continue to. they continue to say it's not true, that joe biden was out of line when he said, it is true, that joe biden was out o line when he said, it is when he said it it's not provable i appreciate you bringing it up. have a good night. thanks to you at home for joining us this hour we have two guests we are very excited about tonight. senator chris murphy and beto o'rourke, the former congressman and current candidate for texas but first, one revelation that got yesterday about donald trump's attempt to overturn the 2020 election did not come from the big public hearing yesterday about the january 6 investigation, rather, it came from mother jones magazine, which obtained leaked audio of this guy, steve bannon, former trump white house adviser and