Summary
President Joe Biden addresses the nation on gun violence and lays out gun safety initiatives. The Tulsa gunman bought his rifle hours before using it to kill his former doctor and three others at the hospital. The House Judiciary Committee had a hearing today pushing forward the Protecting Our Kids Act. A DOJ report finds that Michael Flynn`s identity was not improperly revealed by Obama officials.
Transcript
JOY REID, MSNBC HOST (on camera): What a world in which we will regulate machine guns to keep mobsters from slaughtering each other, but cannot legislate to keep our children alive when we pick them up from school at the end of the day that they`re still breathing. What a world.
That is tonight`s "REIDOUT." ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES starts now. Good evening, Chris.
CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST (on camera): Good evening, Joy. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
REID: Cheers.
HAYES: Good evening from New York. I`m Chris Hayes. As the country mourns last week`s tragic shooting at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas and the 20 subsequent mass shootings in the country since that shooting Uvalde, President Joe Biden just finished a primetime address on gun violence. Tonight, Biden called for Congress to do something to make this stop.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We spent hours with hundreds of family members who were broken, whose lives will never be the same. They had one message for all of us. Do something. Just do something. For God`s sake, do something. After Columbine, after Sandy Hook, after Charleston, after Orlando, after Las Vegas, after Parkland, nothing has been done.
This time, that can`t be true. This time, we must actually do something. The issue we face is one of conscience and common sense. The Second Amendment, like all other rights, is not absolute. It was just -- it was Justice Scalia who wrote and I quote, "Like most rights, the right Second Amendment -- the rights granted by the Second Amendment are not unlimited." Not unlimited, it never has been.
How much more carnage are we willing to accept? How many more innocent American lives must be taken before we say enough, enough, and let there be no mistake about the psychological trauma that gun violence leaves behind? Imagine being that little girl, that brave little girl in Uvalde, who spread blood off of her murdered friends` body on her own face, to lie still among the corpses in her classroom and pretend she was dead in order to stay alive.
Imagine. Imagine what it`d be like for her to walk down the hallway of any school again. The question now is what will the Congress do?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: On that last question what Congress will do, earlier today, the House Judiciary Committee debated its new slate of gun safety proposals which will likely include legislation to raise the minimum age to purchase a semi-automatic weapon at 21, and ban high capacity magazines which can allow shooters to fire dozens of rounds in seconds.
Today`s hearings on this new law as a legislation got heated to say the least.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JERRY NADLER (D-NY): It has not even been 24 hours since last mass shooting, and who knows how long until the next one? Too soon, my friends? What the hell are you waiting for?
REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH): What we`re doing here is just designed to appeal to Democratic primary voters. The bill won`t make our schools safer. It will hamper the rights of law-abiding citizens. And it will do nothing to stop mass shootings.
REP. DAVID CICILLINE (D-RI): Stop saying nothing in this legislation would change anything. That is a lie. That is not true. It will save lives. If you don`t think that`s worth doing, say that. Have the courage to say none of that matters. You think it`s important that there should be as many guns available to as many Americans as possible, you want no restrictions. Be honest about it.
REP. LOUIE GOHMERT (R-TX): Democrats control the major cities that have the worst murder rates. That`s right. Your ideas have been shown to get people killed.
REP. PRAMILA JAYAPAL (D-WA): Do not tell me that the answer to this is to put even more guns on the streets or to militarize our schools.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Perhaps the most unsettling was a performance from Republican Congressman Greg Steube of Florida, who took the opportunity just days after multiple mass shootings to present his personal gun collection, kind of like an excited child eager to show off his toy trains.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. GREG STEUBE (R-FL): Right here in front of me, I have a SIG Sauer P226. It comes with a 21-round magazine. Here`s a SIG Sauer 320. Here`s a gun I carry every single day. This is an XL SIG Sauer P365.
REP. SHEILA JACKSON LEE (R-TX): I hope the gun is not loaded.
STEUBE: I`m at my house. I can do whatever I want with my guns.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: I can do whatever I want with my guns, truly an inspiring message of responsible gun ownership from the congressman. Now, the House is all but certain to pass its proposals as early as next week. But any gun safety legislation faces an uphill battle in the Senate. Right now, a bipartisan group of senators is attempting to cobble together any bill that can get 10 Republican votes to overcome a filibuster.
But of course, we`ve been here before. Too many times the Democrats desperately trying to find common ground with the Republican Party just simply unwilling to compromise at all on guns. Today, the President outlined a long list of tangible proposals he would like to see enacted. But as he said, the responsibilities now of Congress to do something anything to end gun violence in this country.
Senator Richard Blumenthal is a Democrat from Connecticut, member of the Judiciary Committee, part of the bipartisan Senate group that`s actually working on the new gun safety legislation. And he joins me now. First, did you know what was going to be in this speech before going into it?
[20:05:24]
SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL (D-CT): I had a pretty good idea because I`ve heard the president before on this topic. I`ve heard him call for many of these measures. And I agree with him totally that every one of them is important and significant. And I`d like to see every one of them enacted.
But I know the President`s also realistic about what we can do, because we need 60 votes, and he`s been here before so have I. I`m very clear eyed about what is possible. And I`m encouraged by these conversations but by no means confident about what the outcome will be.
HAYES: I want to play something he said about just -- I mean, because there`s the issue of gun violence, there`s issue mass shootings, then there`s this sort of meta issue of how our politics feel incapable of solving this, right? I mean, specifically, the Republican Party politics. Like, the Republican Party has decided, nothing, right, nothing, nothing, nothing on this.
And he said something about having been in this fight for a long time that I thought was striking, because he has been for decades, worked on this issue, thought about this issue. Here`s what he said, number two, I`ve been in this fight for a long time.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BIDEN: I`ve been in this fight for a long time. I know how hard it is but I`ll never give up. And if Congress fails, I believe this time a majority of the American people won`t give up either. I believe the majority of you will act to turn your outrage into making this issue central to your vote. Enough, enough, enough.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: There -- I have covered multiple aftermaths in which legislators had said things along the time of this time is different after multiple massacres that I`ve covered in my 10 years on the air here. So, I guess I`d loathed to elicit that response from new here. But what is your read of this group that`s been meeting?
BLUMENTHAL: Chris, it is really put up or shut up time for Republicans. I think they`ve heard this same message that I heard over this Memorial Day weekend at the parades and ceremonies that I attended all around the state of Connecticut which is do something, you need to do something. And I`m very intent on working as hard and long as possible to reach some of these solutions, not face-saving fig leaves, but real and meaningful action that will save lives. That`s my criteria for what is acceptable.
And I`ve been in this fight as well for several decades as Attorney General of my state for 20 years beginning in the 1990s. And I want to see an assault weapon ban. But I`m doubtful that we can achieve it. I`m going to continue working for it. And I do agree most important that we ought to have action on red flag statutes on extending background checks, on other kinds of measures that are achievable.
But if we fail, the President is right, gun violence prevention must be on the ballot and we must hold accountable any of my colleagues who vote against it.
HAYES: Just to be clear here, he called for the assault weapons ban that the Bush administration allowed to lapse in 2005, to reinstate it. That was of course, passed and signed to law under the Clinton administration, was part of the crime bill that Joe Biden worked on.
He called for that to be reinstated. He said, barring that to raise the age of the purchase of those weapons from 18 to 21. He also talked about a red flag and safe storage laws which seem to be two of the places where from the reporting, there seems like maybe there`s some conversation that can be had there. Can you tell us more about those?
BLUMENTHAL: Absolutely. Those are two of the more encouraging facets of what we can accomplish. I`ve been working on a Red Flag Law with Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, as you know, for about three and a half years. We have a well-written and pretty specific, indefinite proposal that I think ought to attract bipartisan support on safe storage.
What could be more sensible than a mandate that guns should be stored so that children can`t access them? And Ethan Song, a teenager in Guilford, who was killed accidentally in his neighbor`s home when they were playing with a weapon that was unsafely stored would be alive today if we had a safe storage law at that time.
So, yes, I think there`s the possibility for progress. But again, I`m clear-eyed. I`ve been through these talks before.
[20:10:02]
HAYES: Yes, I mean, I guess the question is there`s always this push and pull which is the President was quite forceful, quite specific. It was a -- it was a sort of stronger, more vociferous call for a package of policies, much of which will be embodied, I think, in what we saw on the House markup today, and what we`ll see pass out of the house most likely.
You know, I guess the question is, since you`re in the room with these individuals, like, what the psychology of it is, right? Like, they`re getting the message from a small group of people don`t do anything. But those people have an outsized voice in the heads of these Republican senators.
BLUMENTHAL: The gun lobby continues to intimidate and threaten. It continues to back and sometimes buy legislators, whether at the state or the federal level. But what`s different now is, first of all, the outrage and deep grief of the country. And second, we built a movement. It`s a political movement, a groundswell and grassroots movement in all of those organizations, whether it`s Connecticut against gun violence, or Brady, Giffords, the Sandy Hook Promise, and all of the other groups that are at the table by proxy through a number of us who have worked on this issue for years and years.
And going to red flags, you know, if the New York law had been enforced properly, if resources had been provided, which is what our red flag statute would do, provide incentives, then people might have been saved. Lives might have been saved. And that`s what red flag statues do particularly in suicides, which account for more than half of the gun deaths in the country. Separate a gun from someone who says he`s going to kill himself or somebody else.
HAYES: Yes. There`s also this -- the notion of liability, which was interestingly, the President mentioned. There was, again, legislation that was passed, I believe, around 2005 if I`m not mistaken, that shielded the gun industry from liability almost essentially blanket. I just had an interview with a former gun executive who talked about that having a really major impact in how the gun industry conceived itself, its business practices, etcetera, particularly its marketing practices.
I imagine there`s tremendous resistance there. But it does always strike me as a uniquely American solution to a uniquely American problem, which is just to let people sue the gun makers.
BLUMENTHAL: And, Chris, that point is so important, because the gun industry has this shield from legal accountability that is virtually unique to these manufacturers and retailers. And the President once said to me, you know, if I could do one thing, I would repeal PLACA, that`s the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act which gives them that immunity.
And I`m a trial lawyer. I was attorney general of my state. I know the importance of vindicating individual rights. And the Sandy Hook plaintiffs were able to create an exception to PLACA because of the marketing techniques and deception of Remington. Daniel Defense in the recent shooting did the same kind of marketing and promotion tactics to young people, 18-year-old and 21-year-olds. And by the way, we need to raise that age for assault weapons sales. I agree with the President on that one too.
But PLACA repeal is so important, because once they sense they`re going to be held accountable, the manufacturers will change not only the marketing techniques, but they also may change their products to make them safer and to provide for tracing of bullets so that the police and law enforcement can do a better job.
HAYES: Yes, protect -- the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, just incredible name that should send anyone who reads it screaming into the other room knowing that it is probably not going to do that thing. Senator Richard Blumenthal, thank you very much.
BLUMENTHAL: Thank you.
HAYES: Coming up tonight, big news from the January 6 Committee including an announcement on public hearings and today`s surprise visitor to the committee. But first, new details emerging from the Tulsa hospital shooting. Last night, it happened just a few hours before we came on air. The gunman murdering four people including two doctors, just hours after he legally bought a rifle. Why just small changes in law can make a big difference when it comes to preventing mass shootings in America next.
[20:15:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HAYES: So, we now have more details about the mass shooting at the St. Francis Hospital in Tulsa, Oklahoma where four people were murdered by a gunman who then took his own life. According to the Tulsa Police, the gunman targeted a doctor that recently performed back surgery on him, but the gun blamed for his ongoing pain.
He shot and killed that doctor, a man named Preston Phillips, as well as another doctor Stephanie Husen, a receptionist named Amanda Glenn, and a patient William Love. And crucially, once again, it is an example of the devastation wrought by easy access to a weapon meant to maim and kill.
The gunman purchased the AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle he used in the shooting at 2:00 p.m. yesterday, just hours before he went to the hospital to carry out the attack which began shortly before 5:00 p.m. He was also armed with a semi-automatic pistol that he bought from a pawn shop over the weekend. Both purchases completely legal under Oklahoma law.
[20:20:14]
That was also the case with the gunman in Uvalde who purchased his first weapon practically the moment it became legal to do so in the state of Texas. He brought one AR rifle the day after his 18th birthday, a second a few days later. He used both of those weapons of war at Robb Elementary School the following week to kill 19 children and two teachers.
And in the wake of these two horrors, I think it can be easy to wonder what is the point of trying to change anything? I mean, especially considering the sheer scale, the sheer number of guns in this country. We have 120 guns for every 100 Americans. It`s off the charts completely as compared to every other country on Earth, nothing like it anywhere in the whole big wide world.
Now, some of the right have said well, too late to do anything now, which is just triumphantly disingenuous, sadistic thing to say, having produced this society with this many guns. So, the question is, well, what good would it do if we will implement some small marginal changes, small ways of creating friction in the process to purchase a gun in this country or to get your hands on one?
In the case of the shooter in Tulsa, what if he had to file paperwork to buy that gun yesterday? What if he had to wait 24 hours? What if he couldn`t take it out of the shop with him that afternoon? Then what would have happened? We don`t know, of course. There`s a chance it would have been a better outcome than what happened.
In fact, contrary to the many gun fetishes who argued this, that there`s nothing you can do to stop someone intent on doing harm, we know that even little bits of friction can do a lot of good in all kinds of situations. Like when you go to the drugstore to buy pseudoephedrine and you have to go through some hoops and the medicine is kept behind the pharmacy counter. There`s a limit on how much you can buy each month. You have to show photo ID.
And those rules are in place for reasons. Pseudoephedrine can be used to make harmful illegal drugs. There`s some evidence that regulations in place since 2006 may be responsible for a drop in illicit drug users of that drug. A more precise analogue might be the suicide prevention that`s currently being installed in the Golden Gate Bridge. It`s been a multi-year project, controversial at times. It`s a simple tool. It`s just a small impediment designed to save lives in a place where nearly 1,800 people have jumped to their death.
And the netting has been proven to be effective in many other locations. And studies show that "nine out of 10 people who attempt suicide and survive will not go on to die by suicide at a later date. As this Harvard article puts it, suicidal crises are often short-lived. For the vast majority of people, that moment of crisis passes when they would actually do themselves harm.
And of course, in other contexts, Republicans appreciate the power of small impediments. I am definitely not the first person to point out how fun they are of inducing friction and hassle in the context of women`s reproductive rights. They have tried to come up with as many impediments as possible to secure an abortion, from waiting periods, to mandatory ultrasound, to little mandatory monologues the governor has to give you -- the doctor has to give you to closing clinics.
And also, I`m not the first person to point this out. Notice how they never say, well, if a woman really intend to have an abortion, she`ll do it anyway. Laws can`t stop her. Also, we have implemented gun safety laws before. Several states have red flag laws on the books to allow the government to temporarily take firearms from a person who may be dangerous to themselves or others. Several states also require permits to buy or carry guns and background checks and waiting periods before purchasing them.
And in years past, some Republicans have even supported these measures, including Ronald Reagan who shockingly came out in favor of the Brady Bill in 1991.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Surprise, Ronald Reagan endorses a federal gun control bill.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He looked and sounded like the Ronald Reagan of old. But what he said was far from it. This darling of the gun lobby endorsing a gun control bill.
RONALD REAGAN, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: And I`m going to say it in clear, unmistakable language. I support the Brady Bill and I urge the Congress to enact it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: The Brady Bill was enacted two years later, waiting periods for the purpose of carrying background checks actually became federal law for a time. And it had a real impact.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Brady Bill will take effect 90 days from today. It will require a five-day waiting period to purchase a handgun. During that time authorities will conduct a background check on the buyer for any criminal record or mental illness. Critics claim that will do little to stop violent crime. Brady`s wife Sarah has devoted the last seven years to getting the bill passed.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: it will begin to make a difference. It will begin to save lives
[20:25:00]
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In four states that already have waiting periods to buy handguns, that seems to be true. 47,000 sales had been blocked after background checks.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: According to the Brady Campaign, background checks had made a big difference in the nearly 30 years since law went into effect, preventing approximately four million prohibited gun transactions. Data show that states that require background checks on all handgun sales has seen less than half as many mass shooting incidents as states without that expanded requirement as well as 35 percent fewer gun deaths per capita.
Again, even though the scale of the gun violence problem has gotten almost out of control, there are small marginal things we need to start doing to add friction, to add impediments, to stop this from happening over and over. We have to stop moving the -- we have to start moving the problem in the right direction as opposed to the wrong one which direction is going now. We`ll talk about the measures debated in Congress today next.
[20:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MADELEINE DEAN (D-PA): We`ve all been clamoring for this kind of legislation for a very, very long time. I`m stunned by some of the words that we`re hearing on the other side of the aisle. Where is their outrage over the slaughter of 19 fourth-graders and their two teachers? Why don`t they feel an urgency to do something?
One of the children recounted how she took the blood of her dead friend line near her and smeared herself with that blood to pretend to be dead. What have we taught our children? This is on our watch. Where is the outrage?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Many heated emotional exchanges and appeals on Capitol Hill today as the House Judiciary Committee worked on pushing forward the Protecting Our Kids Act, a package of gun law to try and do something to stop more gun violence and save lives.
Congressman Ted Lieu is a Democrat of California. He sits on the Judiciary Committee, attended the hearing virtually. Fred Guttenberg is a gun safety advocate. His 14-year-old daughter Jaime was one of the children murdered at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida on Valentine`s Day of 2018. It`s good to have you both here.
Congressman Lieu, that was really quite a -- well, it was a markup not a hearing. And it was heated, and it was emotional. You really got to see both sides of the gun debate such as they are in America. What did you think of it?
REP. TED LIEU (D-CA): Thank you, Chris, for your question. Let me first say that as a parent of two sons, I cannot imagine the unspeakable pain that the families in Uvalde are going through. And my heart also grieves for the families in Tulsa, as well as in Buffalo. And also to you, Fred, for your loss.
When you look at this hearing, it`s very clear that Republicans are simply parroting NRA talking points. Democrats are putting people above politics and we passed today from the House Judiciary Committee a pretty significant gun reform bill that`s going to increase to 21 the age at which you can purchase a semi-automatic rifle. It`s going to ban high capacity magazines, put in self-storage requirements, and also have new federal offenses for straw purchases and gun trafficking, as well as some other provisions. So, we are as President Biden said, doing something.
HAYES: There was a moment -- Fred, I wanted to get your reaction too in the hearing today that I just keep thinking about because again, there`s like - - there`s a bunch of arguments people make about guns. There`s some interesting legal arguments for the origins of Second Amendment. And then there`s just like this relationship certain people -- tens of millions of people, have to the object to the culture of it that, you know, people have hobbies. Like, there`s lots of -- people get into painting little figurines or collecting watches or you know, whatever. People can do whatever they want, whatever hobbies.
But what`s just on display today from Greg Steube of Florida was very -- I found kind of a weird combination of kind of menace and like cringy pathos to it, like showing off his guns. I want to play a little bit for you.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEUBE: Right here in front of me, I have a SIG Sauer P226. It comes with a 21 round magazine. Here`s a SIG Sauer 320. Here`s a gun I carry every single day. This is a XL SIG Sauer P365.
LEE: I hope the gun is not loaded.
STEUBE: I`m at my house. I can do whatever I want with my guns.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: You know, I watched that, Fred, and I wanted to be like, OK, cool, cool. That`s neat, man. Like, we got some big feelings there, buddy. What was your reaction to that?
FRED GUTTENBERG, ACTIVIST: First, I hope as many Americans as possible watched as much of this as possible today because, you know, Congressman Ted Lieu and your colleagues, you were amazing today standing up for families and children in just our basic right to be safe from gun violence. But then there was Steube and his colleagues. He`s mentally deficient. And honestly, the members of the Judiciary Committee who he is with on the Republican side, they really seemed as a group to be mentally deficient and more interested in selling guns. It is bizarre beyond measure.
But I have nothing that I can say about what he did that can possibly make any kind of sense, other than the fact that he is truly a mentally deficient human being. And I just hope Americans watch as much today as possible because we did see democracy at work.
We did see -- you showed Madeline Dean, Congresswoman Madeline Dean, who I spoke with last week as well, who has really just been torn up by this violence. And we saw her emotion today. But we saw the Democrats simply fight for the ability to make sense of this gun violence and to do something about it. And we better get this right. If not, President Biden was right tonight, this will be the election issue of our time in November.
HAYES: Now, Congressman, one of the things that drives me pretty bonkers about this debate is that I don`t feel there`s a lot of honesty in the position for the people on the other side. Because I do think that -- I do think there`s an honest case to make on their side. And it basically goes like this. It was a case that a lot of people actually honestly made about COVID when we were talking about COVID restrictions.
And a lot of people that write said like, yes, I don`t -- I don`t care that much if a lot of people die because I don`t want to do these things you`re telling me to do that. That`s the trade-off. And that`s the honest argument, it strikes me is here. For Republicans, they`re like, yes, more people will die of guns in this country if you follow our policy because we think that`s an important trade off. But you never actually get anyone coming out and owning that. They did on it sometimes the COVID debate too, short of a shocking degree, but I`d never see them owning it in the -- in the gun context.
LIEU: That`s a very interesting point, Chris. I have a slightly different take, which is I believe that many of them have the following view, which is that if there were more guns, we would be safer.
HAYES: Yes, right, yes.
LIEU: I think that`s a crazy view. I don`t think it`s correct. But I think they honestly hold that view, which means it`s really hard to come to a common ground and to negotiate if they come from a fundamentally different position of having more guns makes us safer. So, I want anyone watching this show to understand that you are not powerless in this debate.
There is a nationwide election happening in less than six months. You can`t elect people who have a different view that not having a lot more guns makes us safer. We have less guns will make us safer. And you can elect candidates that have that view. And so, people should understand. They can work on campaigns, they can volunteer, they can vote this November.
HAYES: You know, Fred, there was -- there`s a specific policy item mentioned on the President`s speech which has been one that I`ve thought about a lot. I talked about Senator Blumenthal. You know, there`s no universe right now in which you get 10 Republican senators to join in it. But he talked about the liability shield. And it`s something I`ve talked to survivors of gun violence and family members of victims of gun violence about as well.
So, I just want to play what he said about that and get your reaction. Take a listen.
GUTTENBERG: Sure.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BIDEN: We`re the only industry in this country that has that kind of immunity. Imagine, imagine if the tobacco industry had been immune from being sued where we`d be today. The gun industry special protections are outrageous. It must end.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: It`s striking, you know, like, everything from a teddy bear to a crib, to a kid`s crayon. I mean, you know, if a kid injures themselves with it, or as a result of it, like they can expect to be sued. And it does seem to me like it would make a big difference.
GUTTENBERG: It would make a tremendous difference. In fact, if you were to ask me, what is the single most important thing we can do to change the reality of guns in America, it would be to repeal PLACA. In fact, just so you know, I have an active lawsuit against the gun manufacturer. Now, before I can ever get to my federal claim, I have to get through and honor a state law that`s even worse.
But I am going to keep trying because there is nothing more important than -- to me, nothing than the ability to get the CEOs of these companies under oath and on the stand just like we did in tobacco. Let the CEOs tell the families across this country why they decided to produce these weapons in the numbers that they did that then required them to market them to children.
And don`t tell me they don`t market them to children, because we all saw the ads from Texas last week. I can show you the answer of Smith and Wesson that the killer of my daughter was paying attention to. And so, Congressman Lieu, just so you know, what the my lawsuit has been filed as a claim with the Federal Trade Commission.
I would love it for all the Democrats to get together and take what we now know and call these CEOs in front of Congress to tell America why they overproduce these weapons in such large quantities without any mechanisms for safety that we have the gun violence death rate that we do. And if we forced that, we`ll get change.
[20:40:32]
HAYES: Yes. And just as a final thought here, I mean, it`s important for people because so much of this feels familiar and recurring. You know, gun sales and gun manufacturing have gone up significantly in the last few years. 2020 was an inflection point, gun violence has, so there is a trend here that is going in the wrong direction even though this is a long standing enduring problem. It has gotten worse in the last few years.
Congressman Ted Lieu, Fred Guttenberg, thank you, gentlemen both.
LIEU: Thank you.
GUTTENBERG: Thank you.
HAYES: Up next, the Republicans already plotting new scandals to investigate even as their current investigation flop. That`s next.
[20:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HAYES: Congressional Republicans are already working to develop new scandals to hurt Democrats if they retake Congress this November. According to a new report in Axios, Republican leaders met to discuss potential investigations into President Joe Biden`s family, administration. Republicans are eager to manufacture new scandal because their current options are just complete shams and basically imploding in front of them.
The Republican made-up investigation to counter-program the Mueller investigation known as the Durham Probe, named after that man, has been going for more than three years now. That`s a year longer than the Mueller thing itself. And it just saw its highest-profile target, a former Clinton campaign lawyer, acquitted on all charges.
That investigation is accomplished basically nothing in three years. It isn`t a smoking gun Republicans wanted it to be. But Trump`s Attorney General Bill Barr who appointed Durham is standing by his man.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JESSE WATTERS, HOST, FOX NEWS: Do you feel any way responsible for how this Durham situations unfolding and are you disappointed in John Durham?
WILLIAM BARR, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: No, I`m very proud of John Durham. And I do take responsibility for his appointment and I think he and his team did a an exceptionally able job.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: That exceptionally able job was an acquittal on the single account they brought in a few hours. Then there`s the so-called unmasking scandal, which has nothing to do with wearing masks. No, this completely manufactured Fox News scandal is another one of Trump`s Deep State conspiracies.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TUCKER CARLSON, HOST, FOX NEWS: The NSA forwarded all surveillance reports that included Mike Flynn`s name to the White House, where Mike Flynn`s name was promptly unmasked.
MARIA BARTIROMO, HOST, FOX NEWS: The names of the people who unmasked General Flynn has been publicized. Joe Biden, John Brennan, Jim Comey, your reaction?
DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It was the greatest political crime in the history of our country.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why has there been such limited coverage of the Flynn unmasking when this is what the President of the United States has referred to as the biggest political scandal in the history of the United States of America.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: None of that was true. But imagine being a Fox News viewer and having the cast of characters pushing that line to you over and over and over for years. The suppose a grave crime is that Trump`s first National Security Adviser Mike Flynn, a guy who pled guilty to lying the FBI about his conversations with the Russian official before Trump took offense, that Flynn was somehow improperly targeted by the Obama administration and had his identity unmasked in intelligence reports for political reasons. It was all a hit job. Well, now, we are seeing that this is nonsense too.
According to a 2020 Department of Justice document newly obtained by BuzzFeed, written by a Trump-appointed U.S. attorney who was assigned to his task by Bill Barr, an investigation "found no unmasking requests made before Election Day that sought the identity of an apparent associate of the Trump campaign" and has "not found evidence that senior U.S. officials unmask the identities of U.S. persons contained intelligence reports for political purposes or other inappropriate reasons, either during the election or the transition."
In other words, bunk. It was all bunk, nonsense. Again, coming from a Trump appointee who said that. The greatest political crime in the history of our country turned out to be bubkis, of course. But it definitely got ratings. It may be helped Trump and his allies suck a few dollars out of Fox News viewers. So, Republicans are back to the drawing board to reverse engineer another fake scandal to fuel another few years of Fox News segments and fundraising events.
[20:50:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETER NAVARRO, FORMER WHITE HOUSE ADVISER: The seriousness for me are the average lifespan in America for an American male is 76 years old. If I were to go to prison for a year, which is what the contempt of charge could do to me, that would be about a fourth of my remaining life. And there would be a fine that would take a significant portion of my retirement savings. So, I`m taking this very seriously.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Senior Trump White House adviser Peter Navarro getting very morbid, kind of messing up the actuarial data a little bit but explaining tonight how he is taking seriously in responding to a subpoena from a DC grand jury. However, Navarro still refuses to follow a subpoena from the January 6 Committee. And when Ari Melber asked him about other Trump advisors who have spoken the committee, he had strong words for one cooperator.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NAVARRO: Well, first of all of four of the six or not senior White House officials. So, they don`t have any claim -- they wouldn`t have the same claim. I mean, Rudy might. I`m not sure what their claims would be. With respect to Kushner, I call him out in my own lawsuit. I thought it was cowardly what he did to go to the committee and undermine the executive privilege of other Senior White House advisors. So, that`s what I would say about that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: We also learned today that another former Trump official is apparently cooperating after Donald Trump`s Attorney General Bill Barr was spotted leaving a conference room used by the committee. You see him in the front walking away from the camera. And, of course, just this evening, the January 6 Committee announced a public hearing in primetime one week from tonight.
It`s expected to be the first of multiple hearings in which the committee will "Present previously unseen material documenting January 6, receive witness testimony, preview additional hearings and provide the American people summary of its findings about the coordinated multi step effort to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and prevent the transfer of power.
[20:55:10]
Political congressional reporter Olivia Beavers has been following all the developments around the January 6 Committee. She joins me now. Olivia, let`s start with that announcement which is a big one because we -- I think it has been delayed. Honestly, I remember talking to folks on the committee, you know, back in January talking about March and April. The war in Ukraine broke out. But it is finally here and it is going to happen.
OLIVIA BEAVERS, CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER, POLITICO: It`s finally here and we`re still in suspense, Chris. They`re not giving us names. We don`t know how many of these hearings they`re doing. But we do know some things from our conversations with sources. We know that they want this to be a message when they have these witnesses come in that show how grave the moment was when January 6, when you had the rioters storm and try to overturn the election.
We know that they want it to not be in legalese. They want it to be very clear and present it very well so that they can underline just how close it got of people trying to challenge President Biden`s electoral win. And they don`t want it to be resembling the Mueller report where basically, it`s kind of came off as a dud in terms of there being ability to deliver just what Mueller found.
HAYES: Yes. And I think it`s interesting too, like, when you think about witnesses, I`ve been thinking like, well, what -- you know, what witnesses can you call. Most of -- a lot of people have cooperated at this point. We should note that, you know, William Barr and Rudy Giuliani and all these other folks have cooperate, even as Peter Navarro is standing out there.
That`s why it caught my eye that Judge J. Michael Luttig, which is been reported might be a witness here, Axios had this scoop I believe yesterday. He is an enormously respected and big deal figure in conservative circles. He was an appellate judge. He came very close to being nominated to the Supreme Court. He was the mentor for Ted Cruz.
I mean, he is a real like well-known, revered conservative establishment dude, who was the one who counsel Mike Pence that he didn`t have the authority to just unilaterally overturn the elections. And it seems to me like, that`s the kind of witness that I want to hear from. I mean, that that seems like in the -- in the category of something we haven`t heard before.
BEAVERS: They want witnesses, like you just said, who were in the center of it, they were able to see the inside of Donald Trump and Mike Pence, basically having this back and forth. But they do not want to get into what they risked with certain witnesses is inviting someone who`s still a very strong Trump ally who starts using it for theatrical. So, they have to really sort of toe this line.
And I think that`s why we may or may not see the names like Rudy Giuliani who did testify but would they have a different sort of outward presentation publicly. But yes, I think that they`re trying to, you know, pull in people who had a behind-the-scenes view who can offer and shed light into what really happened and help really create this timeline that we saw coming from the White House around January 6.
HAYES: you know, I think early on when Steve Bannon was served with a subpoena that he refused to comply with, there was a real open question about whether there would be a kind of massive resistance from people to this inquiry and to the subpoenas. And that has not shaken out. I mean, interestingly, it`s kind of gone the way that like a Bob Woodward book is, where he just goes to everyone is like, if you don`t talk to me, that person is going to talk S about you. So, you should probably be able to get ahead of that. And then everyone talks about Woodward.
So, you`ve got like, for instance, you`ve got Mastriano who`s now the nominee in Pennsylvania, who we know is investigated by the FBI, or talked to the FBI about his is renting buses for that January 6 rally. He`s cooperating to the January 6 Committee. And then you`ve got Barr coming out. I mean, there really aren`t that many people they didn`t get to talk to.
BEAVERS: No. You know, I`ve actually heard from some of my sources who are, you know, close to the Trump world, that there is actually frustration that there wasn`t sort of a more cohesive legal plan in place about how they were going to be going about with the committee. And that`s why you`re seeing Navarro taking shots at the president`s son-in-law.
But in terms of, you know, some of the big blockbuster names that they`re trying to get -- the ones that we`re really waiting to see, at least I am, are the House Republicans that they`re trying to get to come talk to them about their conversations with Donald Trump.
HAYES: We`ve also got new text. Mark Meadows, again, I think a preview of what we`re going to be seeing, which is the barrage of people pleading with him to get Trump to call off the dogs in January 6, and really kind of visceral and immediate -- the sort of thing I imagine we`re going to see at the hearings.
BEAVERS: Yes, I think you`re going to be hearing people saying what they were relaying to some of the top people who are closest to Donald Trump. I know that there were a lot of people messaging Mark Meadows and say you need to tell him to stand down, whether it was, you know, conservative personalities, whether it was reporters, whether it was staffers and other people who knew him well. You know that they were text messages that were coming from all different angles saying you know we`re in this building and we need help.
HAYES: Yes.
BEAVERS: Or this is really bad for the White House and you need to step in.
HAYES: Even from his -- Donald Trump`s own son who apparently did not have daddy`s number at that point. Olivia Beavers, thank you very much. I appreciate it.
BEAVERS: Thanks, Chris.
HAYES: That is ALL IN on this Thursday night. "MSNBC PRIME" starts now with Mehdi Hasan. Good evening, Mehdi.