Summary
Election denier Doug Mastriano wins Pennsylvania gubernatorial race. The Justice Department asks the January 6 Committee for transcripts of interviews.
Transcript
NINA JANKOWICZ, DISINFORMATION GOVERNANCE BOARD FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: All of those have been forwarded to the Department of Homeland Security services.
[21:00:05]
And, you know, that`s not something that is American, that`s not how we should be acting when we have disagreements about policy in this country, we need to learn how to be adults in the room. I don`t have time for that childishness. I`m not going to let it silence me. I`m going to go forward and continue building awareness about this threat in the future.
CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST, "ALL IN": All right. Nina Jankowicz, I`m sorry that happened to you really. And thank you for taking some time tonight. I really appreciate it.
JANKOWICZ: Thanks for having me.
HAYES: That`s "ALL IN" in for this evening.
MSNBC PRIME starts now with Mehdi Hasan.
Good evening, Mehdi.
MEHDI HASAN, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, Chris. Thank you very much.
And thanks to you at home for joining us this hour.
Cast your mind back for a moment to the days after the November 2020 election, one of the things that could be hard to remember about that moment. Now, the Stop the Steal election denialism has metastasized broadly, is the chorus of people insisting there been massive fraud, and vote rigging, and that Donald Trump was the real winner of the election, was really quite small. It was a very loud chorus, because it included, you know, the sitting president of the United States.
But in the first weeks after the election, it was really just Rudy Giuliani and his ragtag bunch of conspiracy theorists, and rag right-wing lawyers. They spewed a bunch of nonsense at the Four Seasons total landscaping press conference in Pennsylvania, and the equally infamous hair dye presser, in which Giuliani appeared to be melting.
But they were losing court case after court case in their attempt to get Joe Biden`s victory overturned in various swing states. Failing in court, they try to get Republican state legislatures to overturn the election results instead. But the Republican leaders there would not play ball.
But in Pennsylvania, they did find one guy who would help them. A first term Republican state senator was all in on overturning Joe Biden`s win in Pennsylvania. If the Republican leaders in the legislature wouldn`t help Trump, he would.
So he got an all Republican committee from the legislature to hold a sort of fake hearing. He couldn`t do it at the state capitol itself, so they all got together at the Windham Hotel in Gettysburg, and they invited Rudy Giuliani and his Giuliani clown car of supposed witnesses to voter fraud to give them a presentation about how the election in Pennsylvania was rigged.
That would convince the state legislature to overturn the results, surely, and there is a special guest too.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We have one additional witness. Please.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: All right. I will introduce you to the president, you are connected.
(CHEERS)
DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT (through telephone): I saw a couple of great networks, but I really appreciate, being asked to speak. I`m in the Oval Office right now, and it`s very interesting to see what`s going on, and this was an election that we won easily. We won it by a lot.
(CHEERS)
Between the voter suppression, and all the horrible things that happened to poll watchers, every single professional in the business would`ve said, there is no way that we got 11 million votes more than we had four years before in 2016. They were in any cases whisked out of the room, not only into pens that were 20, 30, 40, 60, 100 feet away. And then you`ve got two people --
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HASAN: Yeah, President Trump took --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Poll watchers were pushed out of the building.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HASAN: He took time out of his busy day of presidenting to drawn on for more than ten minutes with all of his conspiracy theory sees about the election, as one of his election conspiracy lawyers held the phone up to the microphone. It was just bizarre, and there is no mistaking who is responsible for making it all happen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It really goes without saying, we would not be here without Doug Mastriano, and so, I`m going to -- I`m going to give him -- I`m going to give him the last word, because I know even if I didn`t, he will take it anyway, and he deserves to have it -- Doug.
DOUG MASTRIANO (R), PENNSYLVANIA STATE SENATE: The time for dithering and deliberation is over. It`s time for decisive action. We have to protect our commonwealth and our nation. The eyes of the world are upon us.
And let`s turn Pennsylvania from a laughingstock into the pride of the world once again, as we always have been and need to be again.
(APPLAUSE)
MASTRIANO: This is our day, this is our hour, this is our time.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HASAN: Pennsylvania State Senator Doug Mastriano, what kind of decisive action did he have in mind?
For starters, Doug Mastriano personally started leaning on the U.S. Justice Department, trying to get them to investigate the election, and declared fraudulent.
[21:05:04]
In late December, Trump called the two top officials at the Justice Department and specifically mentioned Mastriano`s election fraud claims. According to those officials` testimony to Congress, Trump told them, quote, just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressman.
And, of course, when that didn`t work Doug Mastriano then spent thousands of dollars to charter buses to bring people to Washington, D.C. on January the 6th, 2021, where Mastriano joined the crowd that marched on the Capitol, marching right past the breached barricades around the Capitol. That guy, the fringe rando who got Giuliani an audience with Republican legislators to try to convince the Pennsylvania legislature to overturn the election who when that didn`t work tried to pressure the Justice Department to step in and overturn the election, who when that didn`t work bust people to the Capitol on January the 6th and marched on the Capitol, that guy is now the Republican nominee for governor of Pennsylvania, the fifth most popular state in the Union, and it wasn`t close.
Doug Mastriano won last night by almost 25 points and, of course, his victory has all kinds of implications in terms of what it says about the Republican Party in Pennsylvania and nationally and the potency of the Stop the Steal movement.
But it also has very practical, very frightening implications for the 2024 presidential election. If Doug Mastriano wins the general election and becomes Pennsylvania`s governor, he will have the power to appoint the secretary of state who oversees the state`s elections. He has said for months that he knows who he would appoint but he won`t say who it is. The secretary of state has to certify the results of the presidential election and the governor has to sign off on it.
Back in 2020, Mastriano tried to get the results overturned. He tried to get the Republican legislature to step in and say that actually Trump won. But Doug Mastriano was just a nobody first term state senator. He couldn`t get them to do it. If Doug Mastriano is governor come 2024 and Joe Biden wins Pennsylvania again, does anyone think Governor Mastriano and his hand- picked secretary of state are going to certify Biden`s election win?
With Doug Mastriano as governor of Pennsylvania, can you imagine a scenario in which Joe Biden is allowed to win that state? With Doug Mastriano`s victory party last night, among the celebrants was a guy named Ivan Raiklin. Raiklin is an associate of disgraced Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn, and like Flynn, he has spent his time since the 2020 election pushing weird, weird conspiracy theories about how the election was stolen.
In a video he posted to Telegram from Mastriano`s election night party, Raiklin and Mastriano kind of say the quiet part out loud.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
IVAN RAIKLIN, ASSOCIATE OF MIKE FLYNN: What do you want to tell us tonight as you`re about to clinch victory?
MASTRIANO: We`re going to send a message to United States of America, that things are changing in Pennsylvania. When Pennsylvania changes, (INAUDIBLE). It`ll be fantastic.
RAIKLIN: And 20 electoral votes as well.
MASTRIANO: Yeah.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HASAN: Yeah. That is not normal. Your party does not secure the electoral votes of a certain state for your presidential candidate by taking control of that state`s governorship. That is obviously not democracy. That`s like -- I don`t know, some kind of warlordism. But this is your Republican Party now.
In the other big Republican race in Pennsylvania, the Senate primary, that race is still too close to call with Trump-endorsed TV doctor Mehmet Oz leading hedge fund CEO Dave McCormick by just over 1,200 votes. Pennsylvania is still counting mail-in and absentee ballots.
But Donald Trump says his preferred candidate should just declare victory because if the other guy ekes out a win, it`ll just be because they cheated with fake absentee ballots or something, because in Trump`s Republican Party, you don`t win elections by counting all the votes. No, you win elections by declaring that you won and the other side is cheating. You win elections by yelling the loudest and stomping your feet the most, or you know, by getting your allies into positions where they control the election machinery so they can make sure you win.
And by the way, neither of those two Republican Pennsylvania Senate candidates will say that Joe Biden won the 2020 election.
Neither will the Republican who won the nomination for Senate in North Carolina yesterday. As a congressman, he voted to overturn the election results on January the 6th.
MAGA congressman Madison Cawthorn lost his North Carolina primary last night to a, quote/unquote, establishment GOP candidate. But that guy also says he questions the 2020 election. It`s now basically a requirement for Republican candidates at all levels of government to profess that Joe Biden did not win the 2020 election.
And if an actual January 6th insurrectionist manages to win the governorship of a key swing state, they`ll make sure Joe Biden doesn`t win next time.
Joining us now is Ruth Ben-Ghiat, history professor at New York University. She has also written "Strongmen: Mussolini to the Present".
Ruth, thanks for being here tonight.
[21:10:00]
What do you make of Pennsylvania Republicans nominating Doug Mastriano for governor? Is this candidate different from your average Republican election denier and should we anticipate to see more of these going forward?
RUTH BEN-GHIAT, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY HISTORY PROFESSOR: Well, one takeaway is that the Trump leader cult is going strong and while not everybody Trump endorsed you know, won their elections, about 70 percent of voters, you know, voted the MAGA card, and among politicians like Mastriano, you know, showing your loyalty to Trump is now the way to get ahead.
And in his case, it`s like, leader, how many ways can I show my loyalty. You know, he`s -- he`s a Christian, far-right Christian nationalist and he`s one of those people who believes that Trump was put in the White House to -- by the will of God, to save the nation.
And then you know as you as you mentioned he participated in this bogus idea to have, you know, Trump electors, he -- you know, he bused -- he helped to bus people to January 6, and he went to the rally. And there`s this kind of, you know, fervent desire to help Trump any way that you can and this is now the way to get ahead.
It was interesting in the clip you showed his style of speaking is that he almost like strings together these Trumpian phrases and that`s the way he speaks now, which is very interesting, and that`s a phenomenon of autocracy where you have these imitators that populate the system like Ron DeSantis who has the -- you know, the kind of hand gestures. So this guy has kind of learned to speak like Trump. So that`s just -- that shows how -- yeah.
HASAN: Ruth, I was going to say, we have gone from Sarah Palin to Michele Bachmann to Donald Trump to Marjorie Taylor-Greene to Doug Mastriano. Every iteration of Republican extremism is more extreme than the previous one.
And as you mentioned, Mastriano comes with this rather dangerous Christian nationalism which talks about getting rid of the separation of church and state, which talks about, as you say, some kind of divine will for Donald Trump and other Republican candidates. We talk a lot about QAnon, but this Christian nationalism is also very present in some parts of the Republican Party in places like Pennsylvania.
BEN-GHIAT: Oh, absolutely, and it`s -- that`s how it connects to the kind of white racism and the tradition, all of those things that that are so important to millions of voters.
But the other takeaway is that the GOP is preparing to rule as an autocratic party by cultivating lawless people to run for office and we`ve seen dozens of insurrectionists who are running, Mehdi, you know, run with Trump`s approval.
And these people are election deniers and, you know, the election denial thing, it`s not just a propaganda, you know, propagating a false fact, it`s a form of corruption because all of these people have gotten together and conspired to tell this lie.
And so, you know, there you have Dr. Oz, another Pennsylvania candidate who used to be for, you know, gun reform and now to get ahead in the party, he does Mr. Macho Man and he released that campaign ad where he`s, you know, shooting guns and he says that the Second Amendment`s about the right to defend ourselves against an intrusive government, which is a very subversive thing to say.
So it just shows you his remaking as a candidate, Dr. Oz shows how extreme the GOP has become.
HASAN: I often wonder who`s more dangerous or who`s more, you know, shameless. Is it the true believers in this craziness or the kind of fake believers like Dr. Oz who were just doing it to get elected, it seems, given his previous record.
Let me ask you this, Ruth. Today, the Supreme Court in Kansas upheld a Republican-drawn congressional map that improves their chances of flipping the only seat held by a Democrat statewide. I mean, when you look at gerrymandering and the threat to American democracy, this stuff precedes Donald Trump. This stuff precedes MAGA.
There are fundamental systemic problems with American democracy right now, for example, gerrymandering.
BEN-GHIAT: Absolutely, and this is the kind of thing that, as you say, it already existed, but what Trump added and the Trump years added is it kind of souped it up and it made -- it really changed the ethos of political culture in the GOP and made lawlessness acceptable and rewarded lawlessness. So, all of a sudden, all these traditions like gerrymandering and redistricting which already existed, they were integrated into this kind of extremist framework.
And, you know, that`s what autocrats do. Orban in Hungary, he gerrymanders, he redistricts, he does voter suppression, and so, it`s a way that the GOP is really a far right party, which is doing things that anti-democratic parties do around the world.
HASAN: Yes, indeed. And let`s not forget that the Democrats in the Senate had a bill to try and fix gerrymandering but Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema said, no, thank you.
Ruth Ben-Ghiat is a history professor at New York University, expert on authoritarianism, thank you, Ruth, for your time tonight. I appreciate it.
I should add as a side note that today, 28 House Republicans, including the number three Republican in the House, Elise Stefanik, introduced a resolution to expunge President Trump`s second impeachment, the one responding to his incitement of a violent insurrection at the Capitol on January the 6th, that one.
Democrats, of course, control the House and therefore, today`s resolution has zero chance of advancing, while they control the House, at least. However, according to Fox News, which got a copy, if passed, the resolution says it would make it as if the impeachment article, quote, had never passed the House of Representatives. It would make it just poof magically disappear, kind of Orwellian.
Twenty-eight Republicans would like the fact that their de facto leader was impeached for inciting a riot at the seat of government simply erased from history, even though as we now know thanks to recent revelations by two "New York Times" authors that behind the scenes, senior Republican congressional leaders at the time were totally fine with Trump being impeached for his conduct.
Ah, the Republican Party, it`s one thing in private and another thing in public.
We`ll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:21:01]
HASAN: Take a look at this. These are the 108 public figures in Pennsylvania who endorsed Conor Lamb ahead of last night`s Senate primary in that state we had to shrink the font in order to fit them all on one screen. The list includes multiple members of Pennsylvania`s congressional delegation, the mayor of Philadelphia, the Democratic leader in the state Senate, the list goes on and on and on. A lot of names.
Now, take a look at this list, these are the 15 public figures in Pennsylvania who endorsed Lamb`s opponent, Pennsylvania Lieutenant Governor John Fetterman, the most influential name on that list is the mayor of Scranton, Pennsylvania`s sixth largest city, and yet John Fetterman won that race by nearly 33 points yesterday, days after suffering a stroke on the campaign trail.
Fetterman had been the frontrunner in that primary since the day he entered the race, but the Democratic Party establishment of Pennsylvania threw all its support behind Lamb in what was frankly a bizarre attempt to undermine a popular plain speaking progressive candidate. But that was not the most bizarre attempt, sorry, to undermine a popular progressive candidate in last night`s primary elections. That was worse.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, POLITICAL AD)
AD ANNOUNCER: She calls herself a Democrat. But Summer Lee said she wanted to dismantled the Democratic Party. Summer Lee, more interested in fighting Democrats than getting results.
UDP is responsible for the content of this ad.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HASAN: That was an attack ad targeting progressive candidate Summer Lee in the Democratic primary race for Pennsylvania`s 12th congressional district. The message there is clear: Summer Lee is not a real Democrat. If you want a real Democrat, do not vote for Summer Lee.
But notice what it said at the end there, UDP is responsible for the content of this ad. UDP stands for United Democracy Project, a super PAC affiliated with the national pro-Israel group AIPAC.
Now, set aside for a second the fact that that attack ad has nothing to do with AIPAC`s stated goal of supporting Israel, AIPAC is not a liberal group. AIPAC is currently supporting 109 of 147 Republicans who refused to certify President Biden`s legitimate election victory.
But here they are in a Democratic primary running ads saying you should not vote for a progressive candidate because she might fight with other Democrats. According to the progressive group More Perfect Union, that AIPAC linked super PAC, along with another pro-Israel group spent more than $3.3 million in that one congressional race trying to defeat Summer Lee. Right now, though, Summer Lee leads her more centrist opponent in that race by around. What, less than 500 votes, with nearly all precincts reporting. So that may not have been money well spent, we`ll see.
But elsewhere, anti-progressive super PACs have had more success. Last night in North Carolina, a group of super PACS, including those two that I just mentioned, spent millions to defeat progressive candidate Nida Allam in a Democratic primary for North Carolina`s fourth congressional district.
Allam was campaigning on an anti-hate platform her friends were killed in an anti-Muslim hate crime in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Outside spending in that race favored her opponent by nearly ten to one. Allam lost her primary last night by 10 points. Also in North Carolina, those PACs spent millions to defeat Eric Smith, a pro-choice candidate who was running against a Democrat with a history of supporting antiabortion causes in North Carolina`s first district. Outside spending favored her opponent by nearly four to one. Smith lost that primary by more than 30 points.
A similar group of super PACs have already spent more than $2.2 million to try and defeat progressive Jessica Cisneros in her primary race against the House`s lone anti-abortion Democrat Henry Cuellar, ahead of next week`s runoff.
So what were the lessons for progressives last night and how can they stand up to this wave of outside spending against them in Democratic primaries going forward?
Joining us now is Alexandra Rojas, executive director of the group Justice Democrats, which supports progressive candidates in races across the country.
Hello, hello, thank you for joining us this evening.
Justice Democrats has been involved in a lot of primaries.
[21:25:02]
We`ve discussed at many times, AOC, Jamal Bowman, is it fair to say that outside spending against progressive candidates has increased in recent election cycles especially this one?
ALEXANDRA ROJAS, JUSTICE DEMOCRATS: That would be absolutely correct and I would argue that there are several organizations and entities that have formed since the beginning of Justice Democrats because they would rather - - and, you know, you mentioned Summer Lee in Pennsylvania 12, light money on fire in a lot of cases then invest in candidates that look like the base of the party, which is increasingly working class, progressive and women, especially Black women being the backbone of this party.
So it`s definitely been an increase in cycles and one that we`ve expected, but I think that`s what`s so exciting about this moment is that -- at least in Pennsylvania 12, and some of these other progressive races around the country, it looks like it is going to be a defeat of corporate super PAC spending and an establishment that consistently tries to buy our elections with corporate millionaire candidates and we`re seeing working-class people reject that.
And so, that`s what we try to do at Justice Democrats is support these working-class challengers, because it can feel really hopeless. I think across the country there, you pointed out, they`re spending over $30 million trying to go against sometimes democratically elected candidates. And so, we`re trying to go up against that and if folks want to check this -- yeah, go ahead.
(CROSSTALK)
HASAN: In this particular Pennsylvania race with Summer Lee -- I mean, it`s bad enough to have you know corporate-backed super PACs spending dark money, et cetera, et cetera, but why has AIPAC gotten into this fight so aggressively? And why do none of their ads mention Israel which is the issue they actually lobby on?
ROJAS: Well, I mean, I think that, you know, what we have seen is that it`s not just about this one issue. It is about defeating progressive women of color in a lot of cases. It is about us stopping this rising generation of diverse working class progressive leadership who is willing to take a stand on human rights across the board no matter what country might be violating them.
And so, you know, we have seen in this election that they are going to spend whatever they can but there is -- you know, they can spend a lot but you know it`s about progressives building the infrastructure cycle after cycle which I think we are seeing.
The first cycle in 2018 -- obviously, we had a huge upset election with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez unseating Joe Crowley, the rest of the Squad from Ayanna to Rashida to the next cycle, there was Jamaal Bowman and Marie Newman and Cori Bush.
And so, we are feeling really, really good even though it`s really hard right now for so many because cycle after cycle, we are growing against an institution that has had decades of support before. Go ahead.
HASAN: Sorry, we`re almost out of time so I`m jumping in quick last question.
If Summer Lee wins the general election, gets elected to Congress, joins the Squad, what`s the strategy? Is there going to be a lot more flexing of progressive muscles in the House?
ROJAS: Well, I mean, I think that you know we`re all on board to make sure that we get through the general election. If she gets elected, she would become the first Black woman to ever represent the state of Pennsylvania and you know we are very explicit about what we`re doing at Justice Democrats, which is building a mission-driven team on the inside of Congress that`s going to fight for the -- you know, solutions that match the scale scope and urgency of the problems that we`re facing and reject corporate PAC money, and we`re going to make sure that that especially heading into November, where, you know, we don`t know what the what the majority will look like. It`s going to be really critical.
HASAN: Thank you so much for joining us tonight. We`ll have to leave it there. Alexandra Rojas, executive director of Justice Democrats, appreciate your time.
ROJAS: Thank you.
HASAN: Up next, after months of frustration by many that the Justice Department is not doing enough to investigate those responsible for planning January the 6th, new reporting that the DOJ may be doing much more than we think.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:33:43]
HASAN: Back in January, just before the one year anniversary of the January 6th attack, Attorney General Merrick Garland raised eyebrows when he slipped this single line into a half hour speech.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MERRICK GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL: The Justice Department remains committed to holding all January 6 perpetrators at any level accountable under law, whether they were present that day or were otherwise criminally responsible for the assault on our democracy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HASAN: It remains the most public and direct statement we have from the Justice Department addressing its intentions and the public expectations regarding the federal investigation into the attempt to overthrow the 2020 election.
Until that speech, the Department of Justice had been mum on the issue of whether it was investigating anyone besides the rioters themselves. As for the people who planned January 6, who incited the riot, financed it, ran fake elector schemes in support of it, or pressured election officials and state legislators to overturn results, we knew nothing. But now, we are starting to get a clearer picture of what federal investigators are up to.
In a series of scoops since March, "The New York Times" has reported that the Justice Department had substantially widened its investigation to include Trump and his allies efforts to obstruct Biden`s win the fake elector scheme and the financing and planning of the rally that preceded the right.
[21:35:05]
That one of the planners of that rally is cooperating with the federal investigation and that the federal investigation has brought on a career federal prosecutor specifically to oversee the investigation into efforts to stymie Biden`s electoral certification.
And then in the middle of election night last night, "The New York Times" landed another scoop about the federal investigation. "The Times" reports that late last month, the Department of Justice asked the House committee investigating January for transcripts of interviews it has conducted. The House committee has interviewed nearly a thousand witnesses including Trump White House officials and Trump family members.
That request was made last month. As for whether the committee will actually turn those transcripts over, here was the chairman of the committee speaking last night.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
REPORTER: Are you planning on turning it over at some point?
REP. BENNIE THOMPSON (D-MS): Well, once we finish our work, but we`re in the midst of our work. If they want to come and talk, just like we`ve had other agencies to come and talk, we`d be happy to talk to them. But we can`t give them access to our work product at this point.
REPORTER: You`d be more or less okay with like an in-camera review.
THOMPSON: If they say they want to come and look at something, we`d say come on, but we can`t share it. You know, we can`t give them, you know, unilateral access.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HASAN: The committee is going to have several public hearings next month to showcase its work product to date. Why wouldn`t they be willing to share these transcripts with the Justice Department? And what does the Justice Department asking for these transcripts in the first place tell us about how far along its investigation is?
Who better to ask than Joyce Vance, former U.S. attorney for the northern district of Alabama and professor at the University of Alabama School of Law.
Joyce, thank you so much for being with us tonight.
First off, can you help us understand the distinction Chairman Thompson is making here. He would be okay with letting the Justice Department review their transcripts, but he won`t just hand them over. How is that different? Why does it matter?
JOYCE VANCE, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: This is something that lawyers will be familiar with. He`s offering DOJ the opportunity to come and sit in the committee`s offices, review documents, take notes on them, but he`s saying you can`t have physical copies. You can`t go back and put them in your computer system and scan through them and use them in whatever way you want to. You can use your notes, but you can`t have the original documents.
HASAN: So what could a Justice Department investigation use those transcripts for?
VANCE: A lot of different things it`s very interesting. This might be one way to streamline the process of deciding what witnesses you`d like to interview or put in front of the grand jury of your DOJ. You can look through the notes, decide who has information not on matters that the committee is interested in but on criminal statutes that DOJ might be investigating. So that`s one possibility.
I don`t think that these transcripts become a substitute for DOJ thoroughly investigating witnesses on its own. It is perhaps an aid. In some cases, DOJ can be obligated to turn over information from witnesses, although not typically when it`s in the hands of another branch of government. But lots of good reasons for DOJ to want to take a look at these transcripts.
HASAN: So, Joyce, as you know, I`m one of those people who keeps saying where oh where is Merrick Garland? I`m impatient. And the defenders of Merrick Garland often say, well, he can`t comment publicly. We don`t know what`s going on behind the scenes.
So, let me ask you this, from the public reporting we have so far, is it possible to tell how far along this DOJ investigation is or is that all still a black box?
VANCE: I think you can speculate. But to be hones, I think we`ll find out how far along DOJ is in its investigations when we wake up one morning to find that indictments have been returned. This isn`t really something that you can gauge by knowing that DOJ wants to see these documents. It is suggestive of the fact that DOJ is engaging in a broadly based investigation that fulfills that promise that Merrick Garland made on January 5th that he didn`t care how high up people were, who they were that if they were involved in January 6th, which I took to mean the entirety of the big lie that DOJ was heading in to take a look.
HASAN: Joyce, shifting gears a bit before we run out of time. In Wisconsin yesterday, we saw a totally new legal approach to January the 6th. The actual Electoral College delegates in Wisconsin filed a lawsuit against not just the 10 Republicans who pretended to be the state`s Electoral College delegates, but also a Trump campaign lawyer involved in the scheme and the lawyer who helped come up with the scheme in the first place.
That strikes me as a way for individuals to hold the people who try to overturn our election responsible in case the Justice Department doesn`t. Do you think that case has legs though?
VANCE: This is a brilliant lawsuit. It uses Wisconsin state law claims to try to hold the fake slate of electors accountable. It`s a road map quite frankly for other states to file the same sort of actions using their state law.
[21:40:07]
What I like about this lawsuit is because this fake set slate of electors is still trying even at this late date to overturn the Wisconsin election results, they haven`t yet conceded, this lawsuit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief -- the sorts of legal remedies that would prevent and deter future faux electors and perhaps this entire slate of faux electors from taking similar action. It would impose if it`s successful large amounts of punitive damages.
It is a very carefully crafted lawsuit designed to both deter but also to make it very difficult for these sorts of events to take place in the future.
HASAN: Let us see what happens. Joyce Vance, former U.S. attorney, professor at the University of Alabama School of Law -- thank you for your time and your analysis tonight as ever.
Up next, in many states, abortion will soon be illegal if the Supreme Court rules the way they are expected to. But a judge in one key state just said not so fast. That story is next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:45:48]
HASAN: An obsolete Michigan law from 1931 earned renewed attention a few weeks ago after the Supreme Court`s draft decision to overturn Roe v. Wade was leaked. If the court does overturn the constitutional right to abortion established by Roe and by Casey, that old Michigan law might become relevant again because abortion rights would be left up to each individual state, the 1931 Michigan law classifies almost all abortions as a felony with a penalty of up to four years in prison and no exceptions for rape or incest. It also criminalizes providing or advertising medicines that could induce abortions.
That ultra-conservative law has been dormant on Michigan`s books for more than 90 years unnoticed because Roe has protected abortion rights for 50 years. This month, the state`s attorney general, Dana Nessel, a Democrat, said she would refuse to enforce the law if it comes into effect in the next few weeks.
But Nessel is up for re-election in November and her Republican challenger has already said that he will prosecute all abortions with no exceptions, even if the life of the mother is at risk.
Faced with that grim reality, Planned Parenthood represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan sued to challenge the law. Yesterday, a judge issued an injunction against that law and she temporarily blocked it, meaning that even if when the Supreme Court issues its ruling on Roe, the state cannot enforce that law. It will remain blocked until the Planned Parenthood lawsuit is resolved.
The judge wrote, quote, a preliminary injunction furthers the public interest allowing the court to make a full ruling on the merits of the case without subjecting the plaintiffs and their patients to the impact of a total ban on abortion services in this state. She continued, quote, after 50 years of legal abortion in Michigan, there can be no doubt that the right of personal autonomy and bodily integrity enjoyed by our citizens includes the right of a woman in consultation with her physician to terminate a pregnancy.
State Attorney General Nessel issued a statement saying she would not appeal the ruling she said, quote, this injunction is a victory for the millions of Michigan women fighting for their rights. It was a sentiment echoed by the plaintiff Planned Parenthood and its lawyers at the American Civil Liberties Union.
The deputy legal director of the ACLU of Michigan, Bonsitu Kitaba, said, quote, we know that there were prosecutors ready to prosecute individuals under this law and now we can just breathe a sigh of relief.
So, at the very least, an interim victory for millions of people in Michigan under threat of this trigger law.
Joining me now is Bonsitu Kitaba, the deputy legal director at the ACLU of Michigan, which was part of that Planned Parenthood lawsuit.
Thank you so much for being here tonight. You said in that, quote, people can breathe a sigh of relief after this injunction. If the Supreme Court does come out with a ruling that resembles the draft version we saw earlier this month, how long can that sigh of relief last in Michigan?
BONSITU KITABA, ACLU MICHIGAN DEPUTY LEGAL DIRECTOR: Well, luckily, that sigh of relief can last until the case -- the Planned Parenthood case is fully litigated to the merits. Yesterday, Judge Gleicher of the court of claims issued a very strong preliminary injunction that affirmatively states that the parties are likely to succeed that the Michigan state constitution protects the right to abortion through bodily integrity. So until we litigate that case to resolution, Michiganders who need or will need to access abortion care in Michigan will be able to do so.
HASAN: So this is just a preliminary injunction. The judge still has to issue a final ruling on the merits of the case. How do you expect this to end?
KITABA: We`re hopeful that as we continue to litigate this case, the court is going to recognize that not only does the Michigan Constitution protect the right to abortion under bodily integrity, but also the right to privacy and liberty and equal protection, and issue a permanent injunction permanently enjoining the 1931 law and affirmatively declaring that abortion access is legal and safe in Michigan.
HASAN: And Michigan Attorney General Nessel says she will not appeal do you expect any other challenge to a potential ruling in Planned Parenthood`s favor in Michigan?
[21:50:00]
KITABA: It`s possible that a party -- a third party, either the legislature or Right to Life could seek to intervene in the lawsuit and appeal the preliminary injunction. So far, no party has sought to formally intervene in the lawsuit and so the preliminary injunction stands. But we`ll still have to wait and see what happens in the coming weeks.
HASAN: And abortion rights activists in the state I know are trying to pass a ballot measure that would enshrine the right to abortion in the state constitution. They need more than 425,000 signatures to get that measure on the ballot in November. Do you expect this case to be resolved before November?
KITABA: We are hoping and using every tool in our toolbox to ensure that the right to abortion is protected in our state. That includes both going to court and fighting as hard as we can to ensure that that right is protected by the judiciary, but also voters can take it into their own hands and support the reproductive freedom for all ballot campaign. As you mentioned, we need over 425,000 signatures to qualify for the ballot and what`s critical about the ballot movement is that that constitutional amendment will enshrine not only the right to abortion in our state constitution but the full spectrum of reproductive freedoms that everyone is entitled to.
So it`s sort of think about it as a one-two punch we`re in the court -- asking for the court to save us and protect the right to abortion now, but we need long-term solutions as well.
And so, the ballot campaign and the constitutional amendment will be the way that we enshrine these rights in our state constitution for generations to come.
HASAN: Bonsitu Kitaba, the deputy legal director at the ACLU of Michigan, which was part of the Planned Parenthood lawsuit, thank you for your time tonight. Appreciate it.
KITABA: Thank you for having me.
HASAN: Now, I don`t have a great segue here, but I absolutely have to play you this piece of tape we just got in. Former President George W. Bush was delivering a speech at his presidential center today at Southern Methodist University in Texas, and while talking about Russia and its president, he made what must be one of the biggest Freudian slips of all time.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, FORMER PRESIDENT: In contrast, Russian elections are rigged, political opponents are imprisoned, or otherwise eliminated, from participating in the electoral process. The result is an absence of checks and balances in Russia and the decision of one man to launch a wholly unjustified and brutal invasion of Iraq -- I mean, of Ukraine. All right, anyway. I`m 75.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HASAN: I`m not laughing and I`m guessing nor are the families of the thousands of American troops and the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who died in that war.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:57:51]
HASAN: In 1991, the U.S. women`s soccer team won the world title, but they did so wearing hand me downs, jerseys that had previously belonged to a U.S. boys youth squad. Players had to buy their own shoes, or make do with a meal statement of just $10 a day, meaning the best player that tournament subsistent nearly entirely on peanut butter sandwiches and free Snickers bars.
You might think that after winning the world championship that year, the women`s team would earn a little bit of respect from the U.S. Soccer Federation. But they didn`t. Come 1996, the same team won the Olympic gold medal, and yet for all that glory on the field, the players were making about $10 a day.
When they asked for bonuses after taking home the Olympic gold, and a soccer official told them, quote, don`t be greedy. That official suggested they should be happy enough that they got to wear a jersey that said USA on it.
The U.S. women`s soccer team has been fighting for pay equity for decades. Even though the team has won a record four world cup titles, as well as four Olympic gold medals, they`ve been paid piteously less than their male counterparts, despite having far more success on the field, and having generated much more money for the sport.
When members of the women`s team filed a federal equal pay complaint against the U.S. Soccer Federation, in 2016, they noted that the women`s team brought a nearly $20 million more a year than the men`s team, but we`re paid almost four times less. It has taken a long time, as well as a contentious gender discrimination lawsuit against U.S. soccer, to finally enact change.
But it is finally paid off. Today, the U.S. Soccer Federation announced that it is reached a deal to give equal pay to the U.S. men`s and women`s national teams. For the first time, players on the two teams will receive the same pay, and same prize money, in addition to guaranteeing the same paychecks for taking part in the international matches. The deal includes a provision that will pull the unequal payments the team receives from FIFA for participating in the World Cup. So it is truly a landmark deal.
I should also mention that I woke up to this news this morning, and immediately told my youngest daughter, who is also a soccer player, and it`s also these days rightly obsessed with the word misogyny, and she well, she was ecstatic.
And that does it for us tonight, we`ll see you again tomorrow, I`ll also see you on my show, "THE MEHDI HASAN SHOW" on Peacock, here on MSNBC on Sunday night as well.
Now, it`s time for "THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCED O`DONNELL".
Good evening, Lawrence.