tv Chris Jansing Reports MSNBC July 27, 2022 10:00am-11:00am PDT
they see me. after my back surgery, humana sent a home health nurse for five days. helped me get set up, showed me how to manage my meds... ...even sent me a week's worth of healthy frozen meals. get out. good i-dea. better care begins with listening. humana. a more human way to healthcare. sadie? good afternoon, i'm chris jansing live at msnbc headquarters in new york city. today attorney general merrick garland says the criminal investigation into attempts to overturn the 2020 election is now the largest in the history of the justice department and all signs are increasingly pointing to donald trump. at the very same time the former president is stepping back into the d.c. spotlight. reporting from the "washington post" based on four people
familiar with the matter shows for the first time just how focused the investigation has been on trump himself. the doj itself is not commenting, but one of the reporters who broke the story was on "morning joe" discussing how recent grand jury testimony led to these new revelations. >> the questions that individuals are receiving are overwhelmingly again and again about what did donald trump say, what did donald trump do, then what did donald trump say to the vice president, then what did donald trump ask his lawyers to do for him. >> and administration official familiar with the investigation tells nbc that while it's correct the doj is looking into trump's actions, there's no criminal investigation of him specifically. what the post reports is that the doj investigation now appears focused on two tracks, the first a seditious conspiracy
and conspiracy to obstruct a government proceeding, the second is potential fraud corrected to the effort to submit fake electors. and on that second topic, we've also got some interesting new reporting from "the new york times." the "times" has reviewed dozens of emails sent by trump allies that actually use that term, "fake electors" and one even admitted the plan was simply to send them to pence and hope that someone in congress would use them as a way to dispute the count. so after months of pressure on doj to move the ball, we have this exclusive new interview where nbc "nightly news" anchor lester holt asks attorney general merrick garland specifically about trump. >> the indictment of a former president, of perhaps candidate for president, would arguably tear the country apart. is that your concern as you make your decision down the road here, do you have to think about things like that? >> look, we pursue justice without fear or favor. we intend to hold everyone,
anyone who was criminally responsible for the then surrounding january 6 or any attempt to interfere with the lawful transfer of power from one administration to another accountable. that's what we do. we don't pay any attention to other issues with respect to that. >> so much to talk about. i want to bring in "washington post" national security reporter develin barrett who co-wrote the post's exclusive on the doj investigation, glenn kirschner a former federal prosecutor and tim miller write at large at bulwark and a msnbc political analyst. develin, what does your reporting show us about where the doj's investigation is now, but also where it might be headed next? >> so i think one of the really interesting things about what this investigation is doing right now is prosecutors and investigators are working to understand exactly what trump told his lawyers and his other
advocates who are working on, as you describe, the false elector scheme. now, that's sort of a baseline question, right, but it's really important to understand if you are looking at those -- those efforts, you have to understand what were those people's marching orders? what were they told to do? and that's a really important question obviously and that's why trump's actions have come into the investigation. >> so any sense of how far down the road they actually are at this point? are they close to bringing charges at a high level? and could there be more than just the two charges that i mentioned? >> well, look, i think charges are a long way away, any charges are a long way away from where we are now. an investigation is sort of its own animal and certainly federal investigations tend to take a long time, but if you look at one of the other things we report here is that they took phone records of trump's former chief of staff, mark meadows, and they got those records back in april, which means that for a lot of time that people have
been sort of speculating and wondering and asking where is the justice department? what are they doing, if anything, on this issue? you know, they've been quietly working. and i think they are further along than the public understands. i think this story helps, you know, change that understanding and it's a big case and they've done a lot of work. >> i think a lot of the questions come from the fact that, first of all, glen, we know that they are quiet about what they're doing, but also that the vast majority of us, unlike you, don't know what goes on behind the scenes in an investigation. so when devlin uses that phrase "quietly working," knowing what we know now and that great reporting by him and the folks at the "washington post" and pete williams where do you imagine this is and what is quietly working? >> chris, i think the department of justice is probably much farther along in their criminal investigation of the insurrection, not just the foot soldiers, but the command
structure of the insurrection, than any of us know. great reporting is exactly right by devlin and the others on that by line and, you know, i listened to carol very specifically this morning when she said witnesses, plural, have been asked the following questions in the grand jury about donald trump. lots of questions about donald trump. i think it's important for the viewers to know that even though the prosecutors are bound by grand jury secrecy, the witnesses are not. now, we instruct our witnesses that it's probably not smart to talk publicly about what goes on in the grand jury, but they are permitted to and it looks like some of them are. and what i have to say, chris, is all of the data points are beginning to point toward donald trump in fact being under a federal criminal investigation in the grand jury because prosecutors would not go off on some wild fishing expedition in the grand jury asking pointed questions about a former president unless that had been
vetted up through the highest levels of the department of justice. so i think all of the indicators are pretty ominous signs for donald trump. >> and when you say "witnesses" we know about two of them, right, mike pence's former aides being called before the grand jury and that's where we believe questions about trump came up. so what is the significance of the fact that the questions about trump were being asked in a grand jury setting? >> yeah, marc short former chief of staff to vice president pence and one of his lawyers, greg jacob, you know, you have to ask yourself the question when these men are appearing before the grand jury, being asked questions about mike pence, about donald trump, about the danger that their boss, vice president pence, was in on january 6th, you have to wonder how will they shade their testimony. i'm not suggesting they're going to fudge the facts but do their loyalties run to donald trump so that they might be inclined to cover up some of donald trump's
misdeeds or would their lielts reside with their former boss, mike pence, who in a sense was a victim of donald trump's crimes on january 6th. >> i think it's really interesting and i thought it was a great question to miller that lester asked about how fraught this could be politically, the idea just of investigating but the potential of criminal charges being brought. he seemed to be landing squarely in the point of there's a bigger danger in letting people get away with things that are illegal. other people might phrase it a little bit differently, the larger danger is the threat to our democracy, right, but what do you see as the threat here? >> look, i don't think the attorney general merrick garland has a ton of great political options and i don't think -- none of us are at good at predicting what's going to happen in politics that we think we are. that's particularly true of lawyers. i don't think that it makes much sense for america to be making political calculations on what
may or may not happen if they chose or didn't choose to prosecute. there are down sides to both. obviously donald trump's supporters will be extremely inflamed if he's prosecuted by administration of the other party. i think on the flip side there are rightly a lot of democrats and frankly never trump republicans who would be upset if the former president is not held to account for this seditious conspiracy which he obviously participated in. and so, you know, merrick garland is not stuck with any option that will allow everyone to be happy politically. i think that that's why he needs to do exactly what he said last night and follow the law and make a decision based on the law. >> and he has been clear about this, right, glen? he has said very clearly if you broke the law regarding january 6 you will be prosecuted for t does the evidentiary bar just by the nature of what's at stake here have to be higher? >> so i think the -- the
acceptable institutional answer is no the evidentiary bar doesn't have to be higher. probable cause doesn't change, preponderance of the evidence doesn't change, beyond a reasonable doubt the highest burden known to law that's the standard for a conviction doesn't change. the reality, though, chris, is i think the department of justice wants this case to be bulletproof like no other case in the history of the department of justice. now, no case is bulletproof. there will be risks attendant to trying a former president for crimes against the united states, but the down side is if they decline to prosecute him they are giving permission to the next presidential candidate to do everything donald trump just did to try to unlawfully retain the presidency and then some. >> so, devlin, if the potential political fallout is not a primary consideration and we heard merrick garland say it's not a consideration, what are the biggest obstacles right now
for this investigation, for these investigators? >> so i think in terms of obstacles one of them is what you have seen play out over the last two months, right? a lot of people questioning the determination or aggressiveness of the justice department, of the attorney general, and, you know, that sort of criticism, you know, does have an effect on how the justice department is viewed, but at the end of the day i think what garland is trying to do is not create some of the noisier mistakes of the justice department and the fbi back in 2016 and 2017 when these investigations were very turbulent, investigations of presidents or presidential candidates were incredibly turbulent and there was a lot of talk before any charge had been filed on anyone and i think garland is really trying to say as little as possible, even though that makes the ride a little more turbulent right now.
>> and we've talked before, tim, about the intersection of what doj is doing and what the committee is doing and i think part of what the committee has been able to do is fact check claims publicly that trump and others have been making about what happened that day, and one of those claims from trump himself is that he deployed the national guard, but the committee just put out this testimony from chris miller who at the time was the acting defense secretary, and it directly contradicts trump. let me play that. >> just so we're clear you did not have 10,000 troops on the ready before january 6th? prior to january 6th? >> an unmilitary person probably could have some weird interpretation, but, no, to answer your question, no, that was not part of my plan or the department of defense's plan. >> now, to be fair, tim, secretary miller also seemed to
contradict himself there because he said the opposite in a fox news interview, but as the bulwark points out you could lie without consequences to the media, you cannot do that when you are under oath. >> yeah, my colleague amanda carpenter really went through this story in great depth and, yeah, look, when you are on with sean hannity you have a lot of leeway if you wanted to choose to lie, it seems like that's what secretary miller was doing. remember, this is an acting secretary, never even got confirmed in the senate because trump fires mark esper during the transition. look, i think that it's pretty clear that this spin that was coming not just from trump but from his spokesperson appears to be false and i think the committee has put through a bulletproof case that has demonstrated that the president of the united states did absolutely nothing for three plus hours besides watch tv and complain, you know, while our country was under attack and any efforts to try to spin that into
something better than it was have been debunked by the committee. >> definitely and ben, thank you so much, congrats on the reporting, devlin. tim, you will stick around with us. president biden greeted by cheers and applause as he walked into the rose garden just about 90 minutes ago. it's his first appearance in public since he got covid and he used it as an opportunity to update the country on what his administration has done to fight the pandemic. mike memoli is at the white house for us. i heard you say that this is a triumphant moment for him, i got through it, i'm okay, but also a teachable moment, right? >> reporter: that's right, chris, it's a teachable moment in that the president was able to use his own brief stay with covid-19 to illustrate what white house officials have been talking about for several weeks which is that this ba.5 varcht is a reminder we can't let our guard down, we have to follow all the protocols, follow cdc guidance but also the importance of vaccination and the treatments that are now
available. the president saying he never was in fear even with his diagnosis because he knew that he was likely to have a mild case thanks to all the data showing that those who are vaccinated and boosted likely will have that. now, it was a triumphant moment in that you described it well, there was a rare moment where we have the staff of the white house gathered in the rose garden, greeting the president with applause. he then came to the microphones, he took his mask off, but he let -- left his aviators on and delivered a bit of a comparison to his predecessor as it relates to covid as well. take a listen. >> my predecessor got covid, he had to get helicoptered to walter reed medical center. he was severely ill. thankfully, he recovered. when i got covid i worked from upstairs of the white house in the offices upstairs and for the five-day period. the difference is vaccinations, of course. but also three new tools free to all and widely available. you don't need to be president to get these tools.
>> reporter: so now the president is back in the oval office, the question is how quickly can he get back out on the road. the white house had to cancel a number of trips the president was supposed to make because of this. the white house has said the president will follow cdc guidance which limits travel for a period after your negative test following the illness. >> mike memoli, thank you so much. coming up, dueling speeches. what the latest remarks by former president trump and former vp pence now signal about 2024. plus, brittney griner testifies. what the wnba superstar said in her own defense in a russian courtroom today. but first, interest rates are likely going up, the question is by how much and will it help bring down how much you're paying for gas and groceries? you're watching "chris jansing reports" on msnbc. s?ie you're when you have technology that's easier to control... that can scale across all your clouds...
we got that right? yeah, we got that. it's easier to be an innovator. so you can do more incredible things. [whistling] my a1c stayed here, reports" on msnbc. 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 have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome 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. ♪ ♪ this is the moment. for a treatment for moderate-to-severe eczema. cibinqo — fda approved. 100% steroid free. not an injection, cibinqo is a once-daily pill for adults who didn't respond to previous treatments. and cibinqo helps provide clearer skin and less itch. cibinqo can lower your ability to fight infections, including tb. before and during treatment, your doctor should check for infections and do blood tests. tell your doctor if you've had hepatitis b or c, have flu-like symptoms, or are prone to infections. do not take with medicines that prevent blood clots. serious, sometimes fatal infections, lymphoma, lung, skin and other cancers, serious heart-related events,
with so many americans feeling the pain of inflation, we are moments away from hearing what the central bank is going to do about it. at 2:00 p.m. the federal reserve will announce its decision on whether to raise interest rates, and all expectations are it will take another aggressive step towards slowing the economy and reigning in record high inflation. but the key question is will higher interest rates really help. slowing the economy could trigger a recession and while the president says that won't happen, some financial institutions like goldman sachs say there is a 50% chance of a recession in the next two years. recession or not, this economy
is hurting americans across all income brackets. take, for example, people who lost their jobs during the pandemic and have struggled to recover. like josene english from sacramento to lost her six-figure salary, then her savings, then her home. >> i don't see that there's a light at the end of the tunnel yet. i mean, i'm just struggling to get by. it's hard to stay positive. >> joining me now nbc's tom costello an insider columnist inn linette lopez. tom, what will a rate hike today many for americans who are already struggling to survive in this economy. >> i interviewed her yesterday and she is struggling. the good news is she has since found a job to put her back on her feet, but she is so far behind. what will the interest rate hikes do? the idea of course is to bring down the cost of living, bring down inflation, because it's running at these 40-year highs right now, because everybody
sees it every day, whether you are at the gas station, the walmart, the grocery store, whatever, it's everywhere. however, the problem is also not an easy fix for the fed because the biggest drivers for inflation right now are the supply chain crisis, which means we don't have as many goods coming from asia and as a result the goods we do have are more expensive, you can't fix that with a rate hike. in addition the war in ukraine driving up prices for gasoline and of course also on top of that wheat, food, global prices are going up. and then the other element that drove the inflation to where it is, of course, was the pandemic stimulus money that we had a lot of it, both democrats and republicans fed into it and so that money now is in the process or the treasury is in the process of trying to pull back some of that money. but this is not an easy fix because all the global factors involved. so will they manage to get inflation down? yes. will they get it down to the target rate of 3% within the
next few months? that may be a difficult challenge for them right now. >> tom laid out the complexity of this so well, you want to get inflation under control, that's the priority, but what are the chances it works, right? because what people want to know s look, if i'm going to pay higher interest rates i would at least like to be insured that my cost of living is going to go down, right? >> right. we've noticed that the price of oil and gas has gone down over the last month or so, but it's still unclear to economists whether that's because interest rates are going up and there is a lack of demand or because, you know, the war in ukraine, like the supply dynamics from losing russian supply to europe are kind of straightening out now that the russians are selling to the indians and to the chinese. so we don't know why that's happening so we don't know if it's because the interest rate hikes are working or because we're figuring out some of the
economic noise that's been going on. and this is really noisy. one of the reasons we're probably not going to get a lot of answers from the fed about what it's going to do next this afternoon is because there are so many different factors to watch. the russians and the ukrainians did come to an agreement about getting wheat out of ukraine so hopefully that helps global food prices. the biden administration also released a plan to increase demand -- increased the incentive for u.s. drillers to up their supply of oil and gas. so there are things in the works. we just don't know what is pulling what lever right now. so this isn't even -- i don't see the end of this tunnel yet. >> well, i mean, that begs the question, tom, it sounds like there's plenty of down side risk here if you're going to be so aggressive in raising rates, for example, could the strong jobs market take a hit if the
interest rate hikes slow growth? i mean, what is the very real world game -- game is the wrong word -- risk that they're taking here? >> well, i have to say some of the risk is that we're talking ourselves into a recession. we talk about recession every day, every hour on the news for the last few weeks and does this become a self-fulfilling prophecy. if you talk to the economist optimists who are legitimate ph.d. economists who are not to down on the economy. they point to the fact that we are at 50-year lows on unemployment right now, there are about 350,000, 400,000 new jobs created every month, wages are going up, not enough to keep up with inflation but they're going up. so all of that would suggest to you that this economy is not about to go over a cliff if you've got so many jobs and low unemployment. the inflation is a serious problem, no doubt about it, but are we kind of talking about a worst-case scenario with a recession when it may be a recession light, we may avoid it, and in the meantime jobs at
the moment are plentiful. so this is why this is so challenging for the federal reserve. i talked to steve liesman at cnbc yesterday, he's covered the fed forever since i was at cnbc and he said, do you know what, it's a total head scratcher and i would have lost all my hair over this if i had any hair left. >> tom costello, linette lopez, good to end on a chuckle. we will see what they do at the top of the hour. thank you. also today for the first time we're hearing from wnba star brittney griner in a russian courtroom. what she said and what it could mean for the decade she's facing in prison. parents of sandy hook victims seeking millions from alex jones. what are the chances he will have to pay and what it could mean for future cases. you're watching "chris jansing reports" only on msnbc. cases. cases. you're watchin achieved 90% clearer skin at 4 months...
and skyrizi is just 4 doses a year, after 2 starter doses. serious allergic reactions and an increased risk of infections, reports"d a vaccine or plan to. ♪nothing is everything♪ talk to your dermatologist about skyrizi. learn how abbvie could help you save. only on msnbcr dermatologist about skyrizi. riders! let your queries be known. yeah, hi. instead of letting passengers wrap their arms around us, could we put little handles on our jackets? -denied. -can you imagine? i want a new nickname. you guys start calling me snake? no, bryan. -denied. -how about we all get quotes to see if we can save with america's number one motorcycle insurer? approved. cool! hey, if bryan's not gonna be snake, can i be snake? -all: no. i had been giving koli kibble. it never looked like real food. with the farmer's dog you can see the pieces of turkey. it smells like actual food. as he's aged, he's still quite energetic and youthful.
seen this ad? i really attribute it's not paid for by california tribes. it's paid for by the out of state gambling corporations that wrote prop 27. it doesn't tell you 90% of the profits go to the out of state corporations. a tiny share goes to the homeless, and even less to tribes. and a big loophole says, costs to promote betting reduce money for the tribes, so they get less. hidden agendas. fine print. loopholes. prop 27. they didn't write it for the tribes or the homeless. they wrote it for themselves. we're here today to set the record straight about dupuytren's contracture. surgery is not your only treatment option. people may think their contracture has to be severe to be treated, but it doesn't.
visit findahandspecialist.com today to get started. i typed in grandma's name and birth year... and there she was, working at the five and dime. my dad's been wondering about his childhood address for 70 years... and i found it in five minutes. ...that little leaf helped me learn all the names from the old neighborhood... it felt like a treasure hunt. the 1950 census adds vivid new detail to your family story. and it's available now on ancestry. 160 days after she was put behind bars wnba star brittney griner herself testified today in a russian courtroom. at her trial for marijuana possession and speaking through a translator grinder told the court she left the vape
cartridges in her bag accidentally. joining us is nbc's matt bradley following the latest from london. matt, what else did brittney griner have to say today? >> reporter: what we heard today was essentially in addition to what we heard from her defense attorneys yesterday when she didn't speak in front of court. the defense attorneys yesterday were kind of pursuing this avenue of defense where they essentially threw themselves on the mercy of the court because, remember, chris, brittney griner has already pled guilty. she's essentially trying to put herself in a position where she will get leniency from the court as opposed to arguing she didn't commit a crime. she's admitted she committed this crime and continued along that avenue today, but today when we heard from ms. griner herself it was a little different. she and her attorneys were trying to paint a picture not just of someone who accidentally committed a very minor crime and is now in very serious legal
jeopardy but of a government and of border patrol officials who did not give proper due to brittney griner when she arrived and when she was investigated. they said brittney griner said she was made to agree to legal documents and sign legal documents in the russian language that had not been properly translated into english. she was given translators who only partially translated certain bits of crucial information she received during this process and that she essentially wasn't allowed to speak to her defense attorney until two days after she was detained and shortly before she made her first court appearance in that same courtroom. but here is what ms. griner actually had who say to the court herself today. >> we had to use my phone and google translate for him to be able to tell me a little bit. there was a lady that was there that they said was an interpreter, but it was more just her telling me surname, sign, really short words.
she didn't explain the content of the paper. like i didn't know exactly what i was signing. no, my rights were never read to me. no one explained any of it to me. >> so she essentially is trying to argue that she needs a shorter sentence. she's already admitted guilt, but she does face in addition to that ten-year maximum a minimum of a five-year sentence. chris. >> matt bradley, thank you for that. and there is another big case we are following for you, the parents of a little boy murdered in the sandy hooks elementary shooting are finally getting their day in court. jesse lewis was killed when she was just 6 years old, conspiracy broadcaster alex jones attacked jesse's parents as liars. he said they were complicit in a plot that actually faked the shooting. the lewis' lawyer called jones' false claims the most despicable
claim of slander in american history and they are suing for $150 million. jones remains defiant. he arrived in court for his defamation court in austin yesterday with a duct tape over his mouth and it read save the first, a reference to the first amendment. his case is back in court today for the second day of testimony and joining me to break it all down is david henderson, civil rights attorney. thanks for being here, david. look, the defense says free speech protects alex jones. does it? >> no. and here is what you have to remember about this case, chris, every case goes in two basic phases, phase number one answers the question did it happen. if so, phase number two asks the question what should be done about it? this skips straight into phase two. the journal has already determined he is liable for defamation and has no one to blame for that but himself. he continually refused to comply with court orders. the judge said this isn't a criminal case but i'm basically
finding you guilty. you have the right to remain silent in criminal but not civil cases. you have to answer questions. >> the lewis family says they've experienced years, death threats, harassment. so what is the liability that jones could face if those threats, if that harassment is inspired by his lies? >> so, chris, that's a tough question for me to answer because you're talking to a former special victims prosecutor. i've seen lots of cases where terrible things have happened to children and i can tell you they've taught me this, every child expects they are he going to have to bury their parent, no parent expects they will have to bury their children. they had to publicly contend with being called liars about the basis for their grief, therefore, i would say this is unprecedented. i don't know how you begin putting a price tag on that type of harm and yet that's exactly what the jury has to do in this case. >> yeah, a tough one. that duct tape that jones was wearing over his mouth yesterday when he took it off reporters in the courtroom said he put the
tape with its slogan on the table in front of him where the jury could see it. that he was shaking his head in disagreement with the prosecutor as he was making his case. i mean, are the rules in this court different? are you surprised the judge let me do that with the tape, but also isn't the advice to clients usually remain impasse i have? >> it is, but he is not a typical client, i think he is on legal team seven at this point. we talk about these cases in forums like this, jurors see everything they see you going and coming from the courthouse, during breaks, when you go to lunch. he is aware of that. that's why he's grandstanding this way. let me say this, if he showed up to court like that and i was a lawyer in the case, i'd take a bathroom break, lock myself in a stall and dance in circles because i would tell the jury during closing arguments, look, to him this is nothing but a joke and apparently our fundamental rights are the punch line. forget his right to go on the air and tell lies, how about my
clients' right to grieve their child, bury their child and mourn in peace. that should be protected. >> there is another visual you're leaving us with, dancing in the stalls. >> that's a bad visual, too. >> well, that's a conversation for another day but we appreciate your time today. thank you. and we've got some breaking news from capitol hill. just moments ago the senate passed a huge bill, it's going to pump $52 billion into the tech industry to boost research and production of computer chips here in the u.s. the bill now goes to the house, it is expected to pass and then it will be sent to the president to be signed into law. now, that bill may have passed the senate but there is an escalating battle to protect same-sex marriage in congress after the bill on that passed in the house. where are we in the uphill battle in the senate? i will ask tammy baldwin who is leading the fight to find those votes next. baldwin who is leading the fight to find those
votes next (dad) we have to tell everyone that we just switched to verizon's new welcome unlimited plan, for just $30. (daughter) i've already told everyone! (nurse) wait... did you say verizon for just $30? (mom) it's their best unlimited price ever. (cool guy) $30...that's awesome. reliable 5g network in america. yeah, and it's from the most (woman) for $30 a line, i'm switching now! (mom) yeah, it's easy and you get $960 when you switch the whole family. (geek) wow... i've got to let my buddies know. (geek friend) we're already here! (vo) the network you want. the price you love. only from verizon.
the culture war over same-sex marriage is now squarely with the senate and the fight is a fierce one in spite of polls showing 70% of americans favor protections. right now key republicans are staying largely quiet as democrats push to get a filibuster-proof majority. joining me now senator tammy baldwin leading the charge to secure the ten necessary republican votes to bypass a filibuster. it's good to see you. there are a handful of republicans who are signaled they would support the bill, they include susan collins of maine, louisa murkowski, rob portman, thom tillis and the fifth republican senator ron johnson of wisconsin who said last week he has no reason to oppose it. so my first question is does that mean he's a yes and how is it going finding the other five? >> i do believe that means that senator johnson is a yes, and in terms of how it's going, i have
to say that i have had some really great conversations with my republican colleagues, talking about why now and how important marriage equality is in terms of being able to protect one's family and have the legal tools needed to protect one's loved ones. so we're making good progress. most of the people that i am talking to do not want their inclinations made public, if you will, but i think we're very close to having a filibuster-proof majority. >> so let me play, then, what we have heard publicly from some republicans so far. >> i'm looking at the bill and i probably will. >> i think it's insane that we're doing this. >> i've also made clear my
support for gay marriage years ago. >> it's a pure messaging bill. i mean, it's obviously settled law right now. >> i support same-sex marriage. i have for a few years now, several years. >> this is about creating drama not about creating policy for them. >> obergefell like roe v. wade i go nord two centuries of our nation's history. >> you have some clear no's, you have some clear yeses. when you talk to people who are on the fence and they don't want to necessarily be public about it so i'm not asking you to name names, but when you talk about why now, when you make the argument why now, what is their hesitation against it? is it political, is it religious? what are you up against? >> well, i think that when i make the argument why now i'm certainly referring to the supreme court's overturning roe versus wade and the implications
that that has on contraceptive access and marriage equality and frankly interracial marriage also. the urgency is that there are folks across this country in every state who are married and feel that that marriage is in jeopardy they know that if obergefell were to be struck down their marriages would be invalid in 28 states and would not be viewed as valid by the federal government. >> so if you were to assess your confidence right now that this is going to pass on a scale of one to ten with ten being absolute confidence, where are you? >> i'm at an eight or nine. >> okay. well, that's pretty -- that's pretty strong. senator tammy baldwin, we're going to keep watching along with you. thank you so much. we do appreciate your time today. and within hours of new
reporting that the department of justice's criminal probe is investigating donald trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election, the former president and his one-time top defender and vp came back to d.c., delivering dueling speeches that reveal a stark divide in today's republican party. trump's view of life in america, pretty dark and scary. >> there is no longer respect for the law and there certainly is no order. our country is now a cesspool of crime. we have blood, death and suffering on a scale once unthinkable. >> the former president also repeated false claims of a stolen election and reverted to name calling members of the january 6th committee. pence's strategy, to draw a stark contrast, with a specific roadmap for the republican party. >> i truly do believe that elections are about the future. i think the time has come for -- for us to offer a bold, positive
agenda to bring america back. >> for more i'm joined once again by tim miller writer at large for "the bulwark" and an msnbc political analyst and david drucker, senior political correspondent "the washington examiner." you wrote about the two speeches, david. a split of this nature between two former running mates is almost unheard of in the annals of american history, making for a fascinating political spectacle. but beyond the spectacle, what do you see as the political implications of what we heard? >> well, look, i think the republican party is still going through a realignment and a lot of division. now, at a top level it is trump's party and he is its biggest dog, it's biggest draw and his view of america and his way of talking about america is something that appeals a great deal to the republican base and
what you're getting from mike pence is that undercurrent of traditional republicans, which is still a very important part of the republican coalition. they cannot win national elections without it, that prefers happy warriors and solution-driven politics, even though both men and both wings of the party share a lot when it comes to what they think the issue should be and what the solutions to problems should be. >> well, i would say that donald trump laid out what he thought the issue was, at least in terms of crime, and, tim, when you were with jeb bush, you ran against trump, but he suggested in this speech executing drug dealers, tent cities for the homeless. he said our country is going to hell. is this a winning message? >> in a republican primary i think it is. look, you mentioned jeb and triggered me already to talk about 2016 so i might as well go
back and relive it. did we not learn any lessons from 2016? what happened in that primary is donald trump continued to push the envelope, continued to use rhetoric that was far beyond what people were comfortable with, people assumed that that wasn't going to work and republican voters ate it up. what did all the other candidates do? kind of dance around him. jeb went at him harder than anybody, frankly and i'm seeing the same thing with pence. people are saying there is this stark contrast between pence and trump. is there? pence isn't even saying trump's name. pence isn't engaging trump directly or aggressively on anything. what i see is trump continuing to dominate the debate and control over the party while people that would wish that he would go away kind of will either allude to that or make vague criticisms of him while also complimenting him at the same time. it really does feel like groundhog day from what exactly happened in 2016. >> we predicted, david, that he would go off message because he
it's hard to believe that this is a fact -- just this year wildfires have scorched 5.6 million acres of land in the u.s. if that number doesn't shock you, maybe some of these images will. this is just outside of yosemite national park, burning for four days now and scorching 18,000 acres. it has been complicated for firefighters. a local captain told the "l.a. times" that terrain is slippery and burned trees are falling down as crews try to put out those flames. this started as a small grass fire, grew to burn down several buildings. it took down power lies, propane tanks near fort worth. crews aren't sure when it started but it has been hot and very dry there. not far away near dallas are fire quickly started taking over
an entire neighborhood, burning down houses one by one. people immediately started spraying water on their own homes hoping to keep the fire away. investigators think it started when people working in a nearby field hit debris while they were mowing the grass. that's going to do it for us this hour. stay with us because any minute now we're going to have the fed unveil its decision on interest rate hikes. i'm sticking around for "katy tur reports" after this quick break. around for "katy tur reports" after this quick break. new astepro allergy.
IN COLLECTIONSMSNBC West Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on