IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser.

Transcript: The Rachel Maddow Show, 7/28/22

Guests: Kyle Cheney, Jon Stewart, Amy Klobuchar, Leah Stokes

Summary

Interview with comedian Jon Stewart. Interview with Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN).

Transcript

CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST, "ALL IN": That is "ALL IN" on this Thursday night. MSNBC PRIME starts right now with Mehdi Hasan.

Good evening, Mehdi.

MEHDI HASAN, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, Chris, and thank you so much.

And thanks to you at home for joining us this hour.

In just a few minutes, I`m going to be joined live by none other than Jon Stewart, the legendary comedian and former host of "The Daily Show" who was in Washington today, and he had blistering criticism for Republican senators who just blocked a bill that would help veterans exposed to toxic burn pits while deployed overseas. They apparently blocked it out of spite, despite voting for it overwhelmingly this last month.

Jon Stewart has been a fierce advocate on this issue, and he was hopping mad. You will not want to miss what he has to say. That is coming up.

But first, I want to start tonight with this really weird moment that happened last week at a House hearing. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg was testifying before the House Committee, and as you would expect, for several hours, they discussed infrastructure -- roads, railways, electric vehicles, energy prices, all the usual stuff.

Until one Republican congressman on the committees suddenly took the transportation hearing off the rails. And that joke was for you, transport nerds. You`re welcome. Have a watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. TROY NEHLS (R-TX): We now have President Biden in office for 18 months, and just recently, we now see the mainstream media questioning President Biden`s mental state and for good reason. Sadly, he shakes hands with ghosts, and imaginary people. He falls off bicycles.

Even at the White House Easter celebration, the Easter Bunny had to guide him back into his safe place. Cue cards that say sit, here or and the speech, which he actually states, that is, if he stays awake.

So my question for you is, sir, have you spoken with any other cabinet members about implementing the 25th amendment on President Biden?

PETE BUTTIGIEG, TRANSPORTATION SECRETARY: First of, all I`m glad to have a president who can ride a bicycle. And I will look beyond the insulting nature of that question and make clear to you that the president of the United States --

NEHLS: Have you spoken to any of your cabinet members about implementing the 25th Amendment on President Biden?

BUTTIGIEG: Of course not.

(CROSSTALK)

NEHLS: Have you emailed -- this is my time -- have you emailed any member of executive branch about the president`s health --

(CROSSTALK)

BUTTIGIEG: The president of the United States is as vigorous (INAUDIBLE) boss as I have had to pleasure of working with.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HASAN: Okay, first of all. Spare a thought for the poor staffers in that Republican congressman`s office, desperately trying to keep pace behind him with this ridiculous blown up photos. Wait, is this the one with the Easter bunny or the one with the ghost?

But secondly, and if you do not know this because you are not a regular viewer of our friends of Fox, this whole Biden is mentally unfit and should be removed by the 25th Amendment thing, this is a top-line talking point among Republicans right now. This is their big push against Joe Biden that his cabinet ought to be discussing the 25th Amendment because he is so clearly unfit, and, boy, it would be hard to find a more clear-cut case of projection from this Republican Party because while no one in Joe Biden`s cabin is even remotely thinking about invoking the 25th amendment, you know, who did discuss it, who considered it quite seriously, Donald Trump`s cabinet.

Today, ABC News and CNN are reporting that Trump Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin has testified to the January 6 investigation in Congress. Trump`s treasury secretary is probably best remembered as this guy, the one who brought his wife along to the office one day, so they could pose with all the money. But another reason, excuse me, Steve Mnuchin is worth remembering is that he is reportedly one of the cabinet secretaries who opened up discussions about using the 25th amendment on Donald Trump in the aftermath of the January 6th attack. In his book betrayal about the end of Trump`s presidency, ABC News`s Jonathan Karl wrote that according to a source familiar with the conversations starting the night of January the 6th, quote, Mnuchin talked to other members of the cabinet about attempting to remove Trump from office by invoking the 25th Amendment.

Among the cabinet officials he spoke to that night was Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Pompeo has denied the conversation but to this day, Mnuchin has never responded to questions about it. He still refuses to say whether he on January the 6th thought Donald Trump might have been mentally unfit to continue serving as president of the United States.

"The New York Times:" later confirmed Jonathan Karl`s reporting and January 6 Committee Vice Chair Liz Cheney publicly presented evidence that 25th Amendment discussions had occurred, discussions confirmed by star witness Cassidy Hutchinson.

[21:05:03]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. LIZ CHENEY (R-WY): But the committee has learned that after the attack on the U.S. Capitol, this was being discussed by members of President Trump`s cabinet as a way of stripping the full power of the presidency from Donald Trump. We understand that this text message that Sean Hannity sent to Kayleigh McEnany on January 7th shows what Mr. Hannity said to the president. First, no more stolen election talk. Second, impeachment and 25th Amendment are real. Many people will quit.

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON, FORMER WHITE HOUSE AIDE: There`s a large concern of the 25th Amendment potentially being invoked and there were concerns about what would happen in the Senate if it was if the 25th was invoked. So the primary reason that I had heard other than, you know, we did not do enough on the six, we need to get a stronger message out there and condemn this.

Otherwise, this will be your legacy, the secondary reason to that was think about what might happen in the final 15 days of your presidency if we don`t do this. There`s already talks about invoking the 25th Amendment. You need this as cover.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HASAN: If Sean Hannity says it, it must be true, right? Again, Trump Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin has never answered questions about this.

But today, he sat down for a transcribed interview with the January 6th investigation in Congress. I have a feeling it came up.

As for Trump Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, again, he has denied it or at least an anonymous spokesperson for him has denied it. But reports suggest that now he too may be sitting for a deposition with the January 6 committee before the week is out.

And it wasn`t just Mnuchin and Pompeo. Trump`s Education Secretary Betsy DeVos who resigned on January the 6th has said publicly that she too spoke to other cabinet members about invoking the 25th Amendment and also to Vice President Mike Pence who shot down the idea.

Not for nothing, but this wasn`t even the first time that senior members of Trump`s administration discussed the 25th amendment. All the way back in the first year of his presidency after Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, his Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein reportedly found his behavior so erratic that he too reportedly brought up using the 25th to remove Trump from office, the fact that he took pains not to admit to but also did not deny when questioned about it under oath.

Oh, to be a fly on the wall during Steve Mnuchin`s testimony to the January 6 investigation which is showing no signs of slowing down. Today, Trump`s former chief of staff Mick Mulvaney also met with the congressional investigation. NBC News caught up with him on his way to the interview.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: What do you plan to tell the committee today?

MICK MULVANEY, FORMER TRUMP CHIEF OF STAFF: The truth. How about that for a start?

REPORTER: And were you -- were you asked to come in or did you volunteer to come in?

MULVANEY: Asked.

REPORTER: You were asked to come in.

Subpoena or not?

MULVANEY: I honestly just asked to come in.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HASAN: I was honestly just asked to come in. You`ll remember that Mick Mulvaney wore a variety of different hats during the Trump administration, starting off as director of the Office of Management and Budget, to a short stint as Trump`s chief of staff, culminating as being the special envoy to Northern Ireland.

But the night of the January 6th riot, Mr. Mulvaney resigned his position, telling CNBC at the time that he called up Secretary of State Pompeo and told him, quote, I can`t do it. I can`t stay.

Mick Mulvaney also recently said that he believes Cassidy Hutchinson and the other former White House officials who have testified.

And it is against that backdrop that Mick Mulvaney testified behind closed doors for over two hours today. As Vice Chair Liz Cheney recently said at last week`s hearing in fact, new witnesses have stepped forward, doors have opened and the dam has begun to break.

I`ll go off on a limb here and say, after this week`s developments, it`s burst. More witnesses do in fact continue to come forward and not just to the committee. Tonight, we`ve learned that yet another Trump administration lawyer who served under Jeffrey Clark is now cooperating with the Justice Department`s criminal inquiry.

CNN reports the Justice Department is also preparing its legal strategy to force White House officials to testify about their specific conversations with then President Trump.

Oh, and there`s more. As we have discussed before on this show, the Justice Department has been trying for months to gain access to the January committee`s deposition transcripts. So far, they have been unsuccessful. But today, Chairman Bennie Thompson announced that the committee and the DOJ have finally reached an agreement to share evidence including the interview transcripts of the committee`s 1,000-plus witnesses.

Thompson told "Politico" today, quote, we`ve put a template together for sharing information. My understanding is there`s general agreement on it.

The January 6th congressional investigation sharing evidence with the Justice Department is a significant step. So what could it all mean?

Joining us now is Kyle Cheney, senior legal affairs reporter at "Politico". He`s been covering the January 6 investigation very closely.

Kyle, thanks for coming on the show tonight.

You reported today that according to Chairman Thompson, the House investigation has put quote a template together for sharing information with the DOJ. There`s general agreement on it. What is the significance of sharing these transcripts this evidence? Why did it take so long?

KYLE CHENEY, SENIOR LEGAL AFFAIRS REPORTER, POLITICO: So the committee has been extremely protective of its evidence and information and as you know you`ve heard for a long time, questions about how uh aggressive is the Justice Department being you`ve heard criticism and concern among the committee members about is DOJ taking this as seriously as they should be. I think they`ve answered some of those questions recently. But before now, the committee was very wary of saying here just handing over all thousand transcripts when they wanted to see more overt signs that DOJ was pursuing this as seriously as they seem to be now.

And so, I think until we they saw that, there was some reluctance at least to just wholesale hand over their entire work product. On top of that, there`s actually a process where if DOJ obtained some of the committee`s evidence, they have to share it themselves with some of the defendants in January 6 cases and may have to end up revealing some of that so the committee would lose a lot of its control.

I think now though, that the hearings are passed, and they`re as far along as they are, the committee is ready to start providing some of that info, at least in a in a controlled way as DOJ needs it.

HASAN: We heard Liz Cheney said at the last hearing that, quote, the damn has begun to break in terms of witnesses coming forward. Today, we learned that Steve Mnuchin and Mick Mulvaney have testified to the committee. Mike Pompeo may do so by the end of the week.

Why are these former cabinet officials coming forward? What reason do they have for coming in and sharing what they know with the committee this week?

CHENEY: Well, I think the committee has turned its sites in a lot of ways on on post-January 6th. We saw a little bit in their most recent hearing that, look, until now, we`re talking about the lead up the Donald Trump`s effort to overturn the election and then what he did on January 6, which was essentially nothing while the violence, you know, overtook the Capitol. Now, they want to look to the day after, the week after and get a sense of what was really going on in the White House then.

And I think we`ve heard some testimony about the seriousness of which some cabinet members took invoking the 25th Amendment, which would be unprecedented and scary in a way, yeah, but I think that now they want to shore up that information is how serious did these talks really get, you know, what did -- what are these cabinet members, what was the conversation like, who was convening them with Mike Pence involved in these talks.

And I think they need to talk to pretty much everyone in that cabinet, who`s there on January 6th to fill in the blanks.

HASAN: Kyle, for a committee that`s investigating the insurrection and the events that led up to January 6, why is it so important to get to the truth about the 25th amendment discussion which happened after January the 6th?

CHENEY: Because that tells you a lot about how -- how they viewed Donald Trump`s mindset at that time. A lot of the committee`s so focused on what was Donald Trump`s state of mind while all of this was going on. Some of that could be essential if there are ultimately criminal charges against him coming from the Justice Department, as to what was in his head both on January 6th and immediately after.

You know, he -- remember, he was reluctant to deliver some of those lines in a speech about, you know, expressing that the election was over. That`s also important state of mind evidence. I think the cabinet believing the 25th amendment was necessary would tell you a lot about what they thought of his state of mind.

HASAN: Quick last question, Kyle. You also mentioned your reporting today that there appears to be greater urgency for prosecutors to obtain evidence that select committee has gathered. Why? What`s driving that urgency?

CHENEY: I think now that they know more information about who, you know, the Justice Department just recently had deposed two of Mike Pence`s top aides, Marc Short and Greg Jacob who were key witnesses in the White House while all of this was going on. And so, now, that you`re seeing the sort of extent and the degree to which DOJ has advanced its own investigation, I think the committee now is going to see going to feel a more urgent need to share what they know to help this, you know, clearly more mature investigation than they realized as it moves forward.

HASAN: Kyle Cheney, we`ll have to leave it there. Senior legal affairs reporter at "Politico", thank you for your time tonight. Thank you for your reporting.

What act of Republican hypocrisy could have possibly prompted an appearance in front of the Capitol today by legendary comedian and now activist Jon Stewart?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JON STEWART, COMEDIAN: America`s heroes who fought in our wars outside sweating off (EXPLETIVE DELETED), with oxygen battling all kinds of ailments, while these (EXPLETIVE DELETED) sit in the air conditioning, walled off from any of it.

[21:15:02]

They don`t have to hear it. They don`t have to see it. They don`t have to understand that these are human beings. Do you get it yet?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HASAN: I`ll talk to him shortly about why he`s so mad at Republicans in the Senate. Stick around for that conversation.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HASAN: His name was Heath Robinson.

[21:20:01]

He was a father, a soldier and a fitness fanatic. In an interview with "The Columbus Dispatch" a few years ago, he told the paper that at his peak, he could bench press 315 pounds, squat 400 and run two miles in under 12 minutes. He was twice named non-commissioned officer of the year by the Ohio Army National Guard for his physical prowess.

In 2017, Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson was training for a half marathon when he began to feel weak and tired. A month later, he got devastating news. He had lung cancer that had already spread to his bones and elsewhere.

Doctors gave him four to eight weeks to live. Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson held on much longer than that, but in May of 2020, he died.

How did a healthy man contract such a serious cancer seemingly out of nowhere? His family believes it was from burn pits, toxic piles of flaming waste that Heath was exposed to during his time serving in Iraq. And his death was on a rare isolated case, an estimated three and a half million veterans have been exposed to toxic substances like burn pits since the September the 11th attacks, which is why Congress decided to do something to help those veterans. Legislation giving them access to the health care and support they desperately need.

The bill was called the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring Our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act. An early version of the bill to help these veterans pass the Senate earlier this year with overwhelming bipartisan support. The vote was 84-14.

The Senate was supposed to take a procedural vote on that legislation last night, with final passage slated for the end of the week, but then Democrats announced that they had struck a surprise deal on a big budget package of climate, health care and tax policies, and that made Republicans angry. A win for Joe Biden`s agenda not on their watch. So, apparently, they took revenge.

Not only did they whip votes in the House against a bipartisan bill to increase U.S. production of desperately needed microchips which are in short supply, but it seems that wasn`t quite enough to state their anger. So Senate Republicans, members of a party which love to wave the flag and say they support the troops, seem to take their frustrations out about the advance of Joe Biden`s agenda on sick and ailing veterans. They blocked -- they blocked that bill to help veterans affected by toxic burn pits.

Today at a press conference outside the Capitol, Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson`s mother-in-law took the podium in her late son-in-law`s Army jacket, to offer her thoughts on the Republicans brave stamps against veterans.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SUSAN ZEIER, HEATH ROBINSON`S MOTHER-IN-LAW: Senator Toomey, Senator Rob Portman is Heath -- was Heath`s senator, voted no. They voted against my family. They voted for all of us to suffer. Every single one has pictures with veterans on their Facebook pages on their websites, well, screw that. They don`t support veterans. If you vote note on this bill, you do not support veterans.

I`m done and the next time I come back here, it better be to sign the damn bill at the White House because I`m sick and tired of this (EXPLETIVE DELETED).

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HASAN: Standing alongside Heath Robinson`s mother-in-law at that press conference is a face you might recognize -- comedian Jon Stewart who has used his platform and fame to push for a number of veterans help bills. And he turned up on Capitol Hill today to call out the GOP senators voting against that bill.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JON STEWART, COMEDIAN: I`m used to the lies. I`m used to the hypocrisy. I`m used to the cowardice. I`ve been here a long time.

Senate is where accountability goes to die. These people don`t care. I`m used to all of it. But I am not used to the cruelty.

Cowards all of them! Cowards all of them! They haven`t met a war they won`t sign up for and they haven`t met a veteran they won`t screw over. What the (EXPLETIVE DELETED) are we?

This is an embarrassment to the Senate, to the country, to the Founders, and all that they profess to hold dear. And if this is America`s first, then America is (EXPLETIVE DELETED)!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HASAN: Joining us now in his car parked at a rest area on the Jersey turnpike is Jon Stewart, comedian, activist and host of "The Problem with Jon Stewart" on Apple TV Plus. Jon has done incredible coverage of burn pit exposure on his show and is kind enough to join us tonight on his way home from Washington.

Jon, thank you so much for being here.

I said that that was a retaliatory move by Republicans. Other news outlets have reported the same. The Republicans say they are only taking issue with one small part of the bill. Can you explain to our viewers what their arguments is and whether you think it makes sense?

[21:25:05]

STEWART: So I don`t know anything about the retaliation part. What I do know is, this is the same bill that they passed 84 to 14 on June 16th. The small fix that needed to be done in the House was a procedural one based on a really non-material clause that was put in there.

It was one sentence about rural V.A. -- you know, the V.A. being able to take over rural medical practices so that veterans who live far away from V.A. facilities could still have access. It was a very small provision. It was placed in there by the V.A. It was a constitutional issue with it from the House parliamentarian I guess.

So, the House went back and fixed it, put it back to the House, got 90 more Republican votes for it then they got the first time. And the Senate was just supposed to rubberstamp it, because it`s pretty much the exact same bill that they voted overwhelmingly for on June 16th.

The issue rose when Senator Pat Toomey, Patriot Pat, I like to call him, as I`ve been sitting in my car now for probably about 11 hours today. So, I`m a little punchy.

He put in an amendment that basically said, because of the version that they passed on June 16th in the Senate, the veterans health care is mandatory spending. It`s, you know, the mandatory discretionary, these are budgetary tranches that the government uses.

The reason why it was done this way --

HASAN: Yes.

STEWART: -- so that the government couldn`t, if they were promising the veterans that health care they need, they couldn`t then go and raid money from agriculture, or they couldn`t raid money from food stamps. They can`t raid other discretionary things by making it mandatory.

Toomey is suggesting that that means it`s $400 billion of a slush fund. It`s a ridiculous argument. It`s nonsense.

The V.A secretary still -- even if it`s mandatory spending, the V.A. secretary has to submit every year, to Congress --

HASAN: Yeah.

STEWART: -- the House and the Senate, both appropriations committees, what the spending is going to be and what it`s going to revolve around.

HASAN: And what`s so outrageous is that the same Republican senators are willing to spend trillions of dollars, sending people to fight foreign wars, but not to take care of them when they come back hurt and exposed to burn pits.

STEWART: Yeah, you`re singing my song, brother.

You know, there`s something called the OCO, the Overseas Contingency Operations Fund. And the Congress has been funding it for years now, between $40 billion and $70 billion every year. It`s a true slush fund.

It goes right to the Department of Defense, a tiny bit for states. But there are no guardrails on it, and there`s no oversight. That`s a slush fund. That`s a fund that can be used to spend things that none of us can have our eyes on.

And Pat Toomey never had a problem with that --

HASAN: Yeah.

STEWART: -- and he never had problems spending trillions of dollars to send these people to harm`s way.

HASAN: Jon, one of the things you said today, we just played you saying, you said you`re used to the lies, the hypocrisy, the cowardice. You`re not used to the cruelty.

I have to ask, as someone -- I watched you in the 2000s, you know, covering the GOP every night, covering George W. Bush. How different -- I mean, that was a pretty extreme Republican Party, I`m not going to give a pass to Bush`s Republican Party. But how extreme do you believe this current Republican Party is compared to that one?

STEWART: I mean, look, you know, I have different issues with different eras (ph).

What I was referring to was -- you have a group of people who came home from war, a traumatizing event to begin with. And whether they fought for this country to defend the flag, or to fight for freedom, or because it was their only choice between that and prison or a drug treatment program, it doesn`t matter. They lived up to their obligation in this country. They lived up to their oath.

HASAN: Yes.

STEWART: And when they came home, they found that the consequences of their heroism and their valor was their health. And then this country abandoned them.

And so, these individuals have been fighting, by the way, standing on the shoulders of the Vietnam veterans who are still fighting the same battles, and the Persian Gulf War veterans who are still fighting these battles, and really every generation of veterans that we`ve ever had.

Boy, we love war, but, boy, we don`t like to clean up the consequences. Always money for war, never money for the war fighters.

HASAN: Yes, and, Jon --

STEWART: And that`s the issue -- yeah, I`m sorry.

HASAN: On Monday, Chuck Schumer says he`s going to hold another vote on this bill.

[21:30:00]

Do you think it will pass on Monday? And if it doesn`t, will the Republican Party that claims to be the party of the flag of the military, will it suffer any political consequences for this outrageous vote?

STEWART: Well, isn`t that -- isn`t that the issue?

Look, you and I can talk about it until we`re blue in the face. They`re never going to hear this. There`s an information silo.

I was lucky enough to able to get ahold of Newsmax this morning and go on there. Might have been the first time those viewers have ever heard about it.

Fox News, they refuse to put me on all day. We`ve been begging them to get on the air all day long so that we can finally bring along some possible accountability to these senators -- by the way, most of whom voted for the bill, and then turned around --

HASAN: Yes.

STEWART: -- and voted against it, even though there was no material change.

I`ve never seen anything like it. Nobody on the Hill has ever seen anything like it. And the truth is, the people who`ve suffered the most and had to fight the hardest are the ones who will once again bear the brunt of this - - you know, this betrayal.

It`s -- honestly, it -- you question the very foundation. And you know they keep talking about, boy, there`s a recruitment problem in the Army, because of the pronouns they`re using. It`s not that pronouns. It`s that young people see that this government doesn`t live up to its obligations to its fighters. It`s just simple as that.

HASAN: It`s a -- it`s a betrayal as you put it, Jon. And it is as simple as that.

And I thank you so much for pulling over on your way home tonight and joining us and outlining this issue again for the nth time today. You shouldn`t have to do this.

(CROSSTALK)

STEWART: Mehdi -- I may go in and get a smoothie. Now, I`m in a restaurant. I may go in --

(CROSSTALK)

HASAN: Get a smoothie, get a smoothie, you deserve a smoothie after what you`ve done today. We appreciate you, Jon Stewart. Thank you for your time tonight.

STEWART: Thank you so much for staying on this, and please, as much as you can, keep getting the word out. We really appreciate it.

HASAN: We will. Thank you. Safe driving.

STEWART: Thanks so much.

HASAN: Much more ahead here tonight -- much more ahead here tonight. Senator Amy Klobuchar joins us next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[21:36:51]

HASAN: How many of you have this on your bingo cast this week? Democrats on the verge of passing a major spending and tax bill that accomplished goals they have been pitching for decades. I would bet very few of you, expect for many Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer and West Virginia senator, Joe Manchin, who has been persistent in the Democrat agenda until yesterday.

This new reconciliation bill will be the largest investment in climate that Congress has ever made. It`s, called the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. The deal comes months after Manchin tagged the Democrats original and bigger big back better plan in December, and weeks, after Manchin seem to walk away from the bargaining table on this reconciliation package on his terms of inflation.

So if you weren`t betting on the Inflation Reduction Act manifesting itself this week, I don`t blame you. Some have been downright shocked, that this may be the first time that this time Democrats managed to do something both savvy and shrewd. Maybe they out-McConnell McConnell by unveiling the secret agreement only after they had secured Republican votes in the Senate on a China competitiveness bill.

But the overall surprise reaction to the news that Democrats pulled off this day, and even got to this point, it`s kind of funny. A sociologist and Brookings senior fellow Victor Ray put, quote, it`s hilarious to me that the Dems might have done something strategic and everyone is shocked. Keep hope alive, guys.

Now, the bill is expected to be at the Senate floor next week. Majority Leader Schumer will want to pass before the august recess, but will it definitely pass? I mean, remember Kyrsten Sinema.

And even if it does pass, will Democrats be able to use that to save themselves in the November midterms?

Joining us now is Senator Amy Klobuchar, a Democrat from Minnesota, who has been publicly championing this deal.

Senator, thank you for being here tonight.

SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR (D-MN): Thanks, Mehdi.

HASAN: This is a big victory for your party this week. But a question is still on the table is this, once the bill passes, will it work to get voters to the polls, will people credit you for it? Because there`s a poll out from Third Way which shows only one in four Americans even know your party passed a bipartisan infrastructure bill, and that was last year.

KLOBUCHAR: Okay, Mehdi, they may not know the names of these bills, but they know when you have their backs. And what`s happening right now, thanks to Chuck Schumer`s leadership and patience, and really all the Democrats who have come together, is not only are we making, as you pointed out, the most made major investment in climate, just when we`ve seen forests burning in California and in the West, last summer, all over my state.

But we also are standing up for seniors, 46 million people, who went from being ripped off by the pharmaceutical companies, who got written into law, the pharma companies, 20 years, ago a provision that ban Medicare from negotiating for less expensive drugs. They thought they owned Washington. And now, our party is standing up and saying, no, you don`t. We are on this side of the consumers here.

So that is a big deal. Not to mention finally putting in a corporate minimum tax. There`s many good things in this.

[21:40:01]

And your question, will it help? Yes, because we are going to have their backs, and the Republicans, as Jon Stewart so well pointed out just now to you on the New Jersey turnpike, that they are not even standing up for the veterans and voting down the burn pit bill that we`ve been trying to pass for years for our brave veterans.

So I think we`ve got some pretty good arguments to go, to bring to the voters in August.

HASAN: So it is a big deal. And we covered it last night as a big deal. I won`t disagree with you all on that.

What do you say to viewers at home who are saying -- they`re biting their nails, watching tonight, saying, but what about Kyrsten Sinema? Is she on board? Because her office won`t say she`s on board.

KLOBUCHAR: She said she`s reviewing this, pretty normal. You know, she just got it. But when I look at her record here, she`s very strongly supported the environment. Arizona, obviously, having their own share of hot, hot weather, and fires in the past and all kinds of issues. So that is going to be weighing on her, I`m sure.

As well as the forward pharmaceutical piece of, it I would`ve gone even further, she was part of those negotiations of few months ago, and it`s basically that same plan to start negotiating ten drugs to go up to 50, more 50, more and then 20, more and 20 more. So I`m hopeful about that, but I`m sure she`s going to be looking at it. You are going to see a unified party, especially with what we are up against on the Republican side.

HASAN: I am sure our viewers are crossing fingers and toes right now as they hear you speak optimistically. Let me ask you --

(CROSSTALK)

KLOBUCHAR: -- yourself, but every so often, something really good happens. And between the passing the bill today, which is going to allow us to develop semiconductors ourselves in our country, there is good news on behalf of the American people.

HASAN: So, more good news would be if the Senate can protect same-sex marriage, a fundamental civil rights that is under threat right now, thanks to the Supreme Court and this Republican Party. And yet, Susan Collins, Republican senator from Maine, is saying today that the way in which your parties surprise her -- surprise the Republicans, she`s saying this deal on the climate could to make it harder to lobby fellow Republicans to get that same-sex marriage bill passed in the Senate.

Do you buy that? Are you worried about that? Is this typical Susan Collins trying to cover her, I don`t know?

KLOBUCHAR: Okay. Well, I have a lot of respect for Susan, and I do appreciate her support for same-sex marriage. And Tammy Baldwin has been working so hard to get this done because as we know, Justice Thomas laid out a roadmap in his opinion that everything`s on the line, not just abortion, but contraception, same sex marriage, that`s why the House passed the bill under Nancy Pelosi`s leadership, and now it is over in the senate.

But I don`t think you should ever, when I think about this as a whole, and a lot of the Republicans have been saying this, they are, saying we knew you were going to do a pharma deal and stand up with AARP on behalf of seniors, but we just didn`t know that you were going to be able to do something about the climate. Well, we have forest fires burning right at the foot of Yosemite.

I actually think that`s a good thing we have that agreement done. They are welcome to vote against it. I would hope that they would be for doing something for the climate.

But I don`t think that can be used as a reason to not support gay marriage and enshrine something into law that so clearly so many people depend on. And have come to expect in terms of their rights in the country.

HASAN: I guess we will find out very soon just how cynical some of your Republican colleagues are.

Senator Amy Klobuchar, Democrat from Minnesota, thank you for your time tonight, I appreciate it.

KLOBUCHAR: It`s great to be on. Thank you.

HASAN: Senate Democrats are hoping that the inflation would come to an actual pass. What the bill can mean for manufacturing and the environment, and climate change. That`s next. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[21:48:36]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNDIENTIFIED FEMALE: No, you are not dreaming, and it`s not a sign malfunction either. You had that number right. Gas amounts are under $3.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HASAN: Fossil fuels are so expensive in their prices are so volatile that it is literally a new story anytime the price goes up or down. The average gas car in the United States get under 25 miles per gallon. So at this so cheap, it`s literally a new story, gas station in Alta Vista, Virginia, that would be mean $3 for every 25 miles.

And per today`s national average, that would mean for $4.28 for every 25 miles. But if you compare that to our run-of-the-mill electric car, for the sake of this example, let`s say the Chevy Bolt, it only cost an average of 91 cents of electricity for Chevy Volt to go to 25 miles. Literally a quarter of what`s a gas car costs. And it`s infinitely better for the environment.

Now, if the Democrats knew big reconciliation bill, now called the Inflation Reduction Act, if that bill can get passed, electric vehicles won`t just be the economic imperative at the pump, but also at a dealership. If the bill passes as it is written, it would mean $7,500 of tax credits to any new electric car below 55 grand. So cars like the $28,000 Nissan Leaf, for example, it would drop to just around $20,000 at front. Not to mention, thousands save not paying for gas every week.

And the even cheaper level, this bill would create a $4,000 tax credit for buying used electric vehicles.

[21:50:05]

In other words, gone on the days of electric gate vehicles being a status symbol of Silicon Valley tycoons. This bill would it take already the environmental imperative that we have to stop using fossil fuels, and simply make it the cheapest way to get around. And, these tax credits would also be a massive job creator.

So this would lead to tons, and tons of while paying, good for the environment, jobs, and factories, in the U.S. And all of what I just laid out is just part, just part of the massive $369 billion overall that this new bill would put towards at energy and climate crisis.

I know there are dozen things to talk about in this bill, including money for the woefully underfunded IRS to actually enforce our tax laws, allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, that`s huge, closing the loopholes on the corporate minimum tax.

But the chunk of this bill that is truly unprecedented is just how much it is doing on the climate. So what`s is the big picture here? What are we getting for the $369 billion investment in this bill?

Joining us now is Leah Stokes, professor of political science and environmental science at the University of California, Santa Barbara and the adviser to the climate activist groups Evergreen Action and Rewiring America. She is also the host of the climate podcast "A Matter of Degrees".

Thank you so much for being with us tonight.

When this bill was announced, you called it the deal on clean energy and climate we have been waiting for. Big picture, what is it that excites you so much about what is an on offer?

LEAH STOKES, PODCAST HOST: Look, Senate Democrats have been working really for 18 months to try to put together a big, bold investment package on clean energy and climate. And yesterday, seemingly out of nowhere, Senator Chuck Schumer, and Senator Joe Manchin, announce that they would come to a deal for $369 billion in transformative clean energy investments. I think whatever American wants to know is how much money is going to help them save.

It`s going to help make it cheaper for folks to buy an electric vehicle. A heat pump. For some low and moderate income folks, and induction stove. Basically get expensive fossil fuels out of their lives.

That is important because 41 percent of inflation actually driven by fossil fuels directly. So we know that this bill could help Americans save $1,800 a year per household based on analysis from Rewiring America.

And for some folks, who actually use oil to heat their homes, like the Northeast, the Midwest, they can actually save three to $4,000 a year in home heated costs. Given just how expensive oil is right now. So this is really going to be a game-changer in terms of reducing Americans energy bills.

HASAN: It is a game-changer. And yet there`s also a piece of this bill that ties the leasing of public waters for offshore wind projects, to the leasing of public lands for new oil and gas extractions. Something obviously put in there to keep Joe Manchin on board. The government affairs director at the Center of Biological Diversity called that provision quote, a climate suicide pact.

Do you think that compromise is worth it?

STOKES: I do think the compromise is where that. Look, it`s not a bill that I would have written. It`s a compromise. We have to get 50 senators to vote for this thing.

And we have to be clear eyed. We can`t miss the forest for the trees here because literally the forest will burn down if we do. What we are talking about here is optional lease sales that companies can choose to buy into. And there are also going to be royalty increases alongside those lease sales.

So it is possible that we are going to get fewer companies wanting to actually do those leases. And as we get more people buying electric vehicles, and using heat pumps, that demand for oil and gas, it`s going to fall.

So it`s not ideal, it`s not perfect, but what we are talking about here is a really small emissions pay penalty and payments compared to huge pollution cuts on the other side of the ledger.

HASAN: Quick last question, 30 seconds left, they say that they are going to hit 40 percent reduction by 2013 carbon emissions, is that a number you think they can hit based on this bill?

STOKES: Absolutely! We already have several independent analyses that say that is true. Energy innovations as we can get 40 percent below those pollution numbers, road improve as well. And that is going to put us on path to meeting President Biden`s goal of cutting carbon pollution in half this decade. And that is what we need to tackle the climate crisis.

HASAN: And that is the kind of good news that we need on this tonight. Leah Stokes professor of political science, and environmental science, at the University of California, Santa Barbara -- thank you so much for your time tonight. Thank you for giving us that good news.

STOKES: Thanks for having me.

HASAN: We have -- we have one more story to get to tonight, just when you thought certain Republican members of Congress couldn`t go lower, they find a way to surprise you. That story is next. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[21:58:52]

HASAN: Before we go tonight, one final story out of Congress that I`m going to file under Republicans really did that. Yesterday, the House voted on the non controversial and sensible piece of legislation that you would think would garner support from both sides of the aisle. No problem.

That bill is an anti-human trafficking bill, which updates an older bill that passed with virtually no opposition several years ago. The bill does things that everyone can agree is good. It bolsters resources to local agencies who deal with a high level of sex trafficking cases, and invest new funds for housing options for women to get away from abusers.

You would think Republicans would have no problem with this bill. But that is not today`s GOP. The bill passed the house yesterday with, yes, overwhelmingly bipartisan support. But, 20 Republicans voted against the bill, 20.

One of those congressmen is this man, Florida Republican and die hard Trump devotee, Matt Gaetz. I just want to pause here for a second because it is interesting and of note that Matt Gaetz voted against this anti-human trafficking bill, because Gaetz himself is reportedly under federal investigation for alleged child sex trafficking.

According to reports, he is being investigated for having a sexual relationship with the 17 old and paying for her to travel with him. Matt Gaetz has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing. But he made sure to go down this common sense, do good bill in Congress.

That does it for us tonight.

Now it`s time for "THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL".

Good evening, Lawrence.