Summary
According to a source, Trump White House counsel Pat Cipollone was a "cooperative witness" with January 6 investigators. President Biden today signed a new executive order on protecting abortion rights.
Transcript
MINI TIMMARAJU, NARAL PRO-CHOICE AMERICA: So, I think we have to fight and push hard. If they won`t, then yes, we have to elect two more senators.
CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST: All right. Mini Timmaraju, thank you very much for your time tonight.
That is ALL IN on this Friday night.
MSNBC PRIME starts right now with Ali Velshi.
Good evening, Ali.
ALI VELSHI, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, Chris. Have a great evening. We`ll see you next week.
And thanks to you at home for joining us this hour.
Since the January 6th hearings began, there has been one witness that the investigation has gone out of its way again and again to publicly call to testify.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. LIZ CHENEY (R-WY): Our committee is certain that Donald Trump does not want Mr. Cipollone to testify here. Indeed, our evidence shows that Mr. Cipollone and his office tried to do what was right. They tried to stop a number of President Trump`s plans for January 6.
We think the American people deserve to hear from Mr. Cipollone personally. He should appear before this committee and we are working to secure his testimony.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELSHI: The January 6th investigation has publicly and repeatedly called for White House counsel Pat Cipollone, the top lawyer in the White House to testify. Well, today, they got their wish. Mr. Cipollone met with January 6 investigators in person for an on camera, transcribed interview that lasted for eight hours. A source familiar with his testimony told NBC that the former White House counsel was, quote, a cooperative witness in that within the parameters of his desire to protect executive privilege. That would preclude him from talking about certain conversations with the former president, but the former White House counsel was of course president at multiple meetings with President Trump and others, and which efforts to challenger overturn the results of the election were discussed.
He attended a heated meeting in December 2020 which the seizure of voting machines was discussed, and he warned the president in front of multiple top justice officials that his plan to replace`s attorney general with Jeffrey Clark who was advocating for the Department of Justice to declare the election fraudulent was a, quote, murder suicide pact.
At the committee`s last hearing, Cassidy Hutchinson, an aide to White House chief of staff Mark Meadows also detail how Mr. Cipollone made his legal concerns crystal clear in the days leading up to and on the day of the riot itself.
She testified in on the morning of January 6, Cipollone warn that if Trump went to the Capitol along with the mob, quote, we are going to get charged with every crime imaginable, end quote.
Cassidy Hutchinson also recounted to the committee how as rioters spoken to the Capitol later that day, Cipollone told her boss that, quote, something needs to be done or people are going to die, and the blood is going to be on your f`ing hands.
Now exactly what`s Cipollone told the committee today under oath and on camera about all those interactions for over eight hours we do not know. We do have hints, like a committee member tonight said that Cipollone did not contradict the testimony of other witnesses including Cassidy Hutchinson. But for most of his testimony, we will have to wait.
What we do know tonight is that where the January 6th investigation is going next. The next hearing is Tuesday at 10:00 a.m. Eastern, and that hearing`s focus is on the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, specifically that hearing is focusing on the connections between those two far-right paramilitary groups and President Trump and his allies.
I know January 6 has 1 million moving pieces. There was literally a riot. So, I think it`s worth taking a moment and just remembering what we already know about the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, the rules on January 6th and their connections to Trump world.
One of the biggest advances in our understanding of January 6th in the past month came from outside of the January 6 investigations. "The New York Times" spent months building on the work of online sleuths and looking at hundreds of hours of video identifying who in the crowd on January 6 were Proud Boys, so we can understand just a large and coordinated role they played that day.
This is footage of the very first breach on January 6, before Trump`s hour- long plus have ended. This was the first time rioters got past police. It looks like chaos, a mob over takes the police.
But take a look how "The New York Times" traced the role of the Proud Boys and one of their leaders, Joe Biggs, in this first breach.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: In what is widely viewed as a tipping point, a protester named Ryan Samsel (ph) talks to Joe Biggs and immediately confronts the police. Biggs and other leaders look on. Samsel later told the FBI that Biggs encouraged him to do that, something Biggs denies.
As the crowd pushes forward, many of the Proud Boys join in.
[21:05:03]
They start removing barricades and urge others on. A chain reaction has been set off. The attack on the Capitol has begun.
(END VIDED CLIP)
VELSHI: Now part of what made identifying this has a coordinated attack difficult was that the Proud Boys dressed as what one of them referred to as normies, normal people. But they weren`t. They had a playbook.
They would rile up the crowd. At the key entry points that identified early in the day, encouraging members of the crowd to push past police, then they would remove whatever barriers were in the crowds` way. Whether that meant moving literal metal barricades or using chemical spray and police officers of the crowds could push past.
When they met too much police resistance, they would back off and regroup and head off to another key entry point. Here they are, in fact, making the second breach of the day on the east side of the Capitol.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: For hours, hundreds of protesters have remained behind the barricades, but within minutes of these Proud Boys arriving, the police would be overrun. It`s their playbook and action again. One of them antagonizes officers at the front, while another clears away barricades.
The momentum tips, the crowd easily breaks through and sweep through the next barrier, as Proud Boys take down fence after fence.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELSHI: Over and over again, the Proud Boys used the same tactics. "The Times" reports that there were they were critical players in five major advances to breach the Capitol.
But what that reporting from "The Times" makes clear is that without the Proud Boys, what we know is that the January 6th riot that got into the Capitol might never have gotten past police lines. So, that`s what the Proud Boys were up two on January 6.
Stick a pin in that for a minute, hold on to it because I want to talk about the Oath Keepers.
You likely remember the Oath Keepers and the infamous footage of them in what is known as stack formation, holding on to each other as they move forward, as they make their way into the Capitol so they would stick together. You`re seeing it now, the hands on the shoulder of the person in front of them.
In contrast to the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers did not go in incognito on January 6. They dressed for battle. They had earpieces. They had weapons. We still don`t know what their plan was once they got inside the Capitol, but they played a key role that we do know about.
The Oath Keepers provided security for Trump ally Roger Stone on January 5th and January 6th. The Oath Keepers also discussed providing security for other Trump figures like Michael Flynn.
As we learned at the last hearing on the night before the riot, Trump directed Meadows to call both Roger Stone and Mike Flynn to find out what would happen in the next day. How would they know where would happen the next day? They didn`t call Trump. Trump instructed Meadows to call them.
That same night, the night before the attack in the Capitol, we know that the leader of the Proud Boys and the leader of the Oath Keepers met in an underground parking garage near the Capitol and that is on top of what we already know from witnesses.
Like the testimony from former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson who told us that not only with President Trump inform very early on the day on January 6 that members of the rally crowd were armed, but also that she heard the words Oath Keepers and Proud Boys in the White House when White House attorney Rudy Giuliani was around.
And, of course, there was this from President Trump himself in the months before the election.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT: Proud Boys, stand back and stand by --
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELSHI: We know that the Department of Justice has brought seditious conspiracy against leaders of both the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers for their actions on January 6, but the big question is always been how close did their conspiracies come to President Trump and Trump world?
Congressman Jamie Raskin who will be leading Tuesday`s hearing has said that the hearing is unlikely to produce explicit evidence of Trump`s approval of the group`s plans, but that`s not what matters. What Congressman Raskin believes matters is the idea of convergence.
Quote, this hearing will be the moment when one sees both a convergence of efforts of a political coup with the insurrectionary mob violence. We see how these two streams that activity become one.
So given what we know about the respective rules on January 6, how the breaches of the Capitol might not have happened without the well-planned work of the Proud Boys and how Trump associates were literally physically guarded by Oath Keepers, what exactly does January 6 investigation after show on Tuesday to prove this kind of tacit convergence?
[21:10:11]
As you well know, I`m not a prosecutor. I`m not a lawyer. I don`t know any of the stuff, but luckily for us our next guest is those things.
Joining us now is Andrew Weissmann, former FBI general counsel, former senior member of special counsel Robert Mueller`s investigative team, and currently an MSNBC legal analyst.
Andrew, good to see you. Thank you for joining us again tonight.
ANDREW WEISSMANN, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: Nice to see you.
VELSHI: I want to get back to the Proud Boys and the militia group for a second. But, first, I want to talk about the big thing that happened today and that was Pat Cipollone`s deposition, it went along for nearly eight hours.
How significant is all that we know right now all the time that he spent with investigators today and report they came out from one of the committee members that he didn`t contradict any testimony from any other witnesses?
WEISSMANN: Well, both of those are all good signs, but, you know, having been on the other side of this where I knew what the government knew and I listen to the media speculate, this is one where we`re really going to have to wait until next week if there are bombshells from this testimony or things that are useful or corroborate of evidence, new information. We are sure going to learn that in the hearings that are coming up.
So I think that the amount of time is a certainly a good sign and not contradicting is a good sign. Let me just give you an example of that. If you look at that would Ms. Hutchinson said about Pat Cipollone saying, you know, please make sure the president doesn`t go up to the Capitol, he`ll be charged with all sorts of crimes, that`s one we`re even if Cipollone said I don`t recall that I said that, that`s good enough, because that`s the kind of thing that if you are definitely against that and you never said it, you would remember.
VELSHI: Right.
WEISSMANN: So if he`s playing a game of I don`t recall if I exactly said that, that`s totally fine. It means she has a specific recollection, she has a memory that, and he is certainly not denying it.
VELSHI: Right, it helps that she was that specific in her testimony. It was something that he obviously wanted to say it, I definitely did want to say, that he could`ve done that.
WEISSMANN: Right, there are things you know he would`ve said, that`s one where he`s not contradicting if that is an example of that will be totally fine.
VELSHI: So, we know that he spoke to them in April informally with the investigators, and had some specifics about what he wouldn`t get into. Today, there were no specific agreement about what he would or would not say. What is changed? Why is that the case that he is now seeming more comfortable speaking on the record and on camera with the committee?
WEISSMANN: My speculation on that is public pressure and with Liz Cheney specifically calling him out. It is a case that a young staffer has stepped up -- that as Ms. Hutchinson -- and really been a patriot and that really shames him. He has to really step up and you have to choose your an old- fashioned phrase, man up to this situation.
VELSHI: "The Washington Post" is reporting tonight Donald Trump is considering waiving Steve Bannon`s claim of executive privilege, clearing the way for Bannon to appear and testify before January 6 investigators. The idea that they`re that there is privilege to exert, besides that.
Any ideas why Donald Trump would be okay with Bannon testifying at this point? Bannon does have to answer to his subpoena, so it may just be that Bannon has got to do something?
WEISSMANN: Yeah, this strikes me as a Hail Mary by Steve Bannon. His trial, his criminal trial for contempt is coming up in the middle of July. He`s been trying to put it off. This strikes me as a way to try to say, please put the trial of, so that I can go up and testify and then get rid of the criminal case.
That might work if the department is willing to do it, but legally, it has no relevance whatsoever. The former president does not hold executive privilege, it is the current president who holds executive privilege and it wasn`t asserted.
And the facts under which Steve Bannon was indicted, those are all set in stone, so nothing he does now is going to change that. So, this strikes me as a Hail Mary to try and put off a very strong criminal case against him that is upcoming.
VELSHI: Now, that same "Washington Post" report tonight says that since Cassidy Hutchinson`s testimony, quote, several Republicans have come forward to cooperate with the House Select Committee and more are expected to continue to come forward, end quote.
Tell me about this. You have work in cases that are dependent upon sort of a key witness breaking the seal and having other people come forward.
[21:15:03]
But what do you think has happened here in this case, that since Cassidy Hutchinson, Republican seem eager to come forward?
WEISSMANN: I am not sure I would say eager to come forward. But you can imagine junior people saying, you know, I really have to step up, and I know what she is saying is true, and I know the way she is being treated is unfair. I don`t think it won any part of that.
And that`s why Trump and his allies count on. But most would count on trying to scare off witnesses. But I think there is a certain amount of patriotism and knowing that this is really a time that you have seized courageous action on Hutchinson`s part, on Liz Cheney`s part -- we also know that there is a lot of evidence out there.
So, it`s going to be hard to get away with false statements. If you have good lawyers they`re going to say, look, it`s a good time to go and come clean.
VELSHI: Andrew, good to see you again. Thank you. Andrew Weissmann is a former FBI senior counsel, senior member of special counsel Robert Mueller`s investigation into Russian interference and now, an MSNBC legal analyst.
Always good to talk to you, my friend.
WEISSMANN: Nice to talk to you.
VELSHI: We`ve got a lot to get to this hour, including President Biden`s executive order on abortion rights and some very good news on the economy.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:21:02]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: And the challenge from the court, to the American women and man -- this is a nation. The challenge is, go out and vote. But for God`s sake, there is an election in November. Vote, vote, vote. Consider the challenge accepted, court. In the meantime, I am signing this important executive order.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELSHI: President Biden today, before signing a new executive order on protecting abortion rights, Biden said the order directs various federal agencies to do everything they can, among other things, to protect the rights of women to travel to other states for abortion care, to protect access to abortion pills and contraception, to ensure that hospitals nationwide will treat women having miscarriages without fear of prosecution to protect patients sensitive health information and protect pray since providers in clinics from intimidation and violence.
The executive order is welcome news to supporters of abortion rights and was widely welcomed by reproductive justice groups. But it also seemed to many like an underwhelming response that the Biden administration had to be pressured into making.
Renee Bracey Sherman of We Testify, and advocacy organization representing women who have had abortions, took to Twitter to praise the federal government staffers who are working on the things laid out in the executive order. But she added, quote, these are all things that should have been done a year ago, not the things we have been asking for. Once again, it is the bare minimum and not meeting the moment, end quote.
Indeed, today also brought news that the Biden administration had considered one of the things advocates believed would meet the moment -- declaring a public health emergency to try to preserve access to abortion. But the White House ultimately decided that the benefits of the move would be marginal and the chance of it being blocked in high court would be high which, depending on your perspective, is either Joe Biden doing the best with a bed hand he has been dealt or failing to do everything he possibly can to fight for abortion rights.
In an effort to support state-level efforts to protect abortion access, this afternoon, Vice President Harris hosted Democratic state legislators from Indiana, Florida, South Dakota, Nebraska and Montana, all Republican controlled states that have either already banned abortion or are about to.
But it was in Arizona today that we got a glimpse of the next frontier in how Republicans will try to criminalize abortion at the state level and may eventually outlaw it on the national level. Today, a federal judge heard arguments on whether Arizona`s fetal personhood law should be allowed to stand in the wake of Roe v. Wade being overturned. The law, signed by the state`s Republican governor last year, confers all the same rights as people who have already been born on to fetuses, embryos and even fertilized eggs.
Now there are at least two other anti abortion laws on the books in Arizona -- the legal status of which are currently being disputed -- but Arizona`s abortion providers say that regardless of how these legal fights resolve, they cannot perform abortions with this fetal personhood law in effect because they fear it could be used to charge them with all kinds of crimes.
Organizations, including the Center for Reproductive Rights are asking a judge to block the law, because it is far too broad and they -- if you perform in abortion on a fetus who has the rights of a person who has been born, is that assault? Is it child abuse? Is it murder? What are the criminal consequences for providers?
The response from Arizona`s Republican attorney general appears to be basically, mess around and find out. Basically, do an abortion and see if anyone tries to prosecute you or go to a judge beforehand to try to get a ruling on a case by case basis that you won`t get prosecuted.
It is easy to see how the potential ramifications of a fetal personhood bill in a post-Roe America get very murky and very scary, very quickly.
[21:25:00]
If a fetus has all the rights of a person, do miscarriages get investigated by police? Could there be wrongful death lawsuits brought against doctors who perform abortions? Could pregnant women be denied lifesaving care that would hurt or damage a fetus? Because doctors would be afraid of violating that fetuses rights?
If the Arizona law stands, it could become the Wild West of potential investigations of prosecutions, of women and health care providers. It will, of course, be the model for other Republican led states.
And if Arizona`s fetal personhood law or, one in another state, makes it to the Supreme Court, what do you think are the chances that the Supreme Court confers personhood on fetuses nationwide?
Things have gotten very bad very quickly in lots of states since roe was overturned. And it`s only been two weeks. We are just getting started.
Joining us now is Fatima Goss Graves, president and CEO of the National Women`s Law Center.
Ms. Graves, thank you for being with us. It`s good to have you here.
I think we have to get our head around this fetal personhood law in Arizona. I described it as potentially the next frontier in efforts to criminalize abortion. You know a lot more about these things. Do you see it that way?
FATIMA GOSS GRAVES, NATIONAL WOMEN`S LAW CENTER PRESIDENT & CEO: There is no question, this has always been the endgame. It has never been enough just to ban abortion or to criminalize abortion. Their goal is to grant fetuses the same statuses in the Constitution and the law as women.
And you even saw some undertones of that in Justice Alito`s opinion. So, I understand why states are now encouraged to go even further than the existing bans, to ban abortion and convey personhood.
And I want to be clear the -- Center for Reproductive Rights is vague. It`s vague in terms of the consequences, but it`s also vague in terms of which conduct is prohibited. I was talking about contraception? Are we talking about IVF? What is it, exactly?
VELSHI: How much of that vagueness is intended to cast a chill across the border, upon everyone who either is seeking an abortion or anyone who might advise them?
GRAVES: Unfortunately, we are already seeing a chilling effect, not just in Arizona and that is entirely the goal. Even in places where abortion is still legal, you have providers who are concerned about civil suits or potential criminal liability. You have pharmacists who are concerned about dispensing medication. And you have the wide swath of people who I just call the helpers, who are worried, if they support anyone who is seeking abortion care, that they will find themselves in legal jeopardy.
That`s why it was important that, in today`s executive order, that the attorney general will be providing more technical assistance and guidance, because it is basically legal chaos right now.
VELSHI: In fact, your organization put out a statement commending the executive order. On the other than that, the role of the attorney general to provide some technical guidance, what is else is in the executive order that you are seeing?
GRAVES: I was happy to see that they`ve put the full weight of the government behind this problem with a cross agency task force. So, that to me says that you understand it is not just a public health emergency or just even a legal emergency, but we need the whole government involved.
But I also thought it was important that HHS has some timeline to at least have some -- can drag on. We are not a drag on state. We are in a state of emergency. So, Health and Human Services was instructed to come back, within 30 days.
And then the other thing that I think is really worth noting is the specific naming of our privacy and digital security. Right now, you are seeing reports of people deleting their apps that they used to track menstrual cycles. And a lot of worry that governors, attorney generals, local district attorneys will use that data -- that unsecured data -- to prosecute women, to prosecute providers, to prosecute those supporting them.
It is also unsafe. And so having more guidance there is important.
VELSHI: There is still a lot of pushback against the administration, with people saying it is too timid. They could be doing much more. What is your take on that?
GRAVES: I think they can do more. So, I don`t see this as the end. And it is my deep hope that it is not the end. It has been two weeks since the decision. And I saw that as an executive order, what they felt like they needed to do to respond to these next few weeks.
You know, I joined the many calls for them to declare a public health emergency. I think this is a time when every policy maker needs to think about things that they wouldn`t have done unusual times.
[21:30:04]
We are now dealing with rogue state lawmakers that are passing unconstitutional law and a Supreme Court that is being nonresponsive. We need everyone to act.
VELSHI: Fatima Goss Graves, thank you for your time tonight. Fatima is the president and CEO of the National Women`s Law Center. We always appreciate you taking the time to talk to us.
Up next, we are going live to Tokyo for the story that shocked the world today. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:40:04]
VELSHI: The entire world remains stunned at the news of the assassination of the former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe during a Friday morning rally in Japan. The news is especially hard to fathom given that it involved a firearm in a country where gun violence is practically nonexistence.
Footage from the rally shows Mr. Abe giving a speech when the attack took place. Images are disturbing, so if you need a moment to step away from your TV, this might be the time to do it.
(VIDEO CLIP PLAYS)
VELSHI: The suspect initially fired a single gunshot, which seems to have missed Abe. The former prime minister, who is surrounded by security, turned around, looked over his left shoulder, and at that point a second shot was fired. Abe fell to the ground. The suspect, a 41-year-old local man, was apprehended.
What happen next is a feeling of shock and chaos with which Japan has almost no experience. As Mr. Abe was lying on the ground, people in the ground desperately called for an ambulance while others wondered, incredulously, whether a gun was used, because Japan has some of the strictest gun laws in the world. A person must pass a 12-step process before purchasing a firearm. That process includes a gun safety class, a written exam, a physical and mental evaluation, as well as an extensive background check and a police investigation. If approved, the gun needs to be registered with the police.
The system didn`t fail. Shinzo Abe`s shooter didn`t score to system to get a gun. Instead, he built his own. The weapon that killed Abe was a homemade device.
According to police, the suspect has admitted to the crime. He told police that he wanted to attack Abe because he believed the former prime minister was part of a group that he hated. The police have yet to identify what group that is.
Police also confirmed that Abe suffered two wounds in the neck area, -- and that both wounds were caused by the second shot.
This is very rare but could be explained by the type of weapon the suspect built which, according to police, with nearly 16 inches long and looked like this -- some sort of a double barrel shotgun made out of metal, wood and held together with dark tape. But that gun, that homemade gun, proved lethal.
Shinzo Abe arrived at the hospital with no vital signs. He was pronounced dead approximately five hours later.
Leaders from all over the world have expressed their acknowledgment at the loss of Japan`s longest serving prime minister. While in Japan, the current prime minister has condemned the attack as barbaric and cowardly.
Joining us now to discuss is Michelle Ye Hee Lee, Tokyo bureau chief of "The Washington Post".
Michelle, we appreciate your time, particularly the hour right now.
The suspect told police that he shot Abe because he believed the former prime minister was part of a group that he hates. Has there been any headway on figuring out what this group might be that he is referring to?
MICHELLE YE HEE LEE, TOKYO BUREAU CHIEF, THE WASHINGTON POST: Well, what we know so far, based on the reports, is that he told investigators it wasn`t a political motive. And that the group was a religious one that his mother was interested in. And he was frustrated at Abe because of it was connected to it.
It`s a really fluid situation and so that`s all we have heard so far, from all the media reports. But as you mentioned there are so many questions about exactly what type of gun he built, with the ammunition was, what his motivations were, and I imagine all these questions are what investigators will be focused on in the days and weeks to come.
VELSH: Well, you reported earlier that local police didn`t know of Abe`s participation in that rally until yesterday evening. So, security was put together at the last minute. What do you know about that? How big a deal with security at an event like this be?
Obviously, Japan does not have a gun problem. But these important people, politicians, do typically have security around them.
LEE: Yes. So, we know that there was at least one security person around him and that perhaps there may have been maybe ten or 20 people who were there for security purposes. But what may seem perplexing outside of Japan looking in is just how little barriers or any sort of watchmen there were around a politician.
And that`s because Japan is such a safe country. Crime rates are so low. Gun violence almost not happens. They were ten cases of shootings last year in 2021. Eight were related to the Yakuza, the Japanese mob, and there was one gun death.
So, there is actually just not much of a security apparatus around the leader because it has been very safe so far. He was on the street with people on a tiny stump that he was standing on and that was about it.
And the gunman was apprehended almost immediately after the shooting. But by then Shinzo Abe had already been gravely injured. So I imagine there will be questions about security that all politicians heading back out into the trail today.
[21:40:06]
But I don`t know if it will be a long term enhancement and how long (INAUDIBLE).
VELSHI: So, this gun was pretty crude but the assailant was in close proximity. And based on the images we have seen, the gun was rather large. And I`m just wondering, I can`t imagine that happening as easily in the United States, because people would react to the gun. But given the rarity of someone using a weapon like that in Japan, I almost wonder whether that caused a delay. People not really understanding what was happening --
LEE: I have been wondering the same as well, actually, about the reaction to the shooting in many ways, because it is so rare. The sound of it, how doctors treated the wound, how to deal with something like a gunshot, how police talk about a gun shooting. I think all these things were just so influx and in confusion yesterday because it just doesn`t happen here in Japan.
And in terms of the gun and what he carried into the area -- I mean, it`s an open street. It was right near a subway station. So it`s not like people were going through bags or being checked or anything.
He was standing there. There were video showing he was standing nearby, just watching without the gun in view. And then all of a sudden he pulled it out and shouted and people were just confused as to what the sound was.
VELSHI: We don`t have that problem in the United States, unfortunately. Everybody seems all too familiar with the sound of a fired gun is.
Michelle, thanks for your reporting. Michelle Ye Hee Lee is the Tokyo bureau chief for "The Washington Post". We appreciate your time.
All right, I know it`s Friday night. But if you are like many of us you may notice many people around you have an all too familiar feeling that COVID may be creeping back into our lives. Is it? I`ve got just the person to ask after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:46:22]
VELSHI: You may have seen different versions of this very colorful chart from the Centers for Disease Control, given that we have been flooded with more and more new contagious coronavirus variants in the past year. This is the CDC`s varied proportion chart. It tells you how much of the coronavirus floating around our country is from one variant versus another.
And it shows you how those proportions have changed over time, which is why you get that left to right color gradient. This chart specifically the greenish teal a bar on the chart has sparked a bunch of headlines this week about the new subvariant of omicron, with the new clinical name, BA.5. Some headlines are calling it, quote, the worst virus variant.
BA.5 is now the dominant strain in the country and accounts for more than half of the country`s COVID cases. We know it is more contagious than any previous strain we have come across so far. And experts say there are some early signs that this variant might make you slightly sicker than previous strains. We are waiting to get more data about that.
But here is why it matters. Let`s have a look at that chart again. What does it tell you? It tells you, yes, BA.5 is the dominant strain. You can see that on the right side. It also tells you that this virus keeps on changing. It keeps mutating.
Every couple of months, it looks like there is a different dominant variant or sub variant. Every couple of months, the most prominent color on this graph changes. The vaccines and treatment we currently rely on to rein in this virus are based on old strains of coronavirus. And so far, that has worked out okay, perhaps until now.
Many experts say this new strain of the virus, BA.5, is changing the playing field under our feet as we try to finally defeat this virus. The reason is something called immune escape. BA.5 is getting around the immunity built by recent COVID infections and vaccines better than previous strains did.
Already, daily case numbers are trending upward. Take a look -- it`s on the right side of the screen -- it doesn`t look like much but it`s a bit of a trend -- because of BA.5. Anecdotally, it just feels like more and more people around us are testing positive.
Hospitalizations in this country have also been trending up steadily, since our most recent COVID spike in May and June. We know from our winter battle with the original omicron variant that if this virus can create enough new cases quickly, there can be crippling spikes in hospitalizations, even if it is not a whole lot more virulent than previous strains.
So, I have questions about what all this means for us, what we can and should do to protect ourselves against this current version of the virus. And I know who just ask.
Joining us is Dr. Vin Gupta. He`s an MSNBC medical contributor -- a critical -- you would think I would know this, right? A critical care pulmonologist and a faculty member at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington.
We have been speaking for over two years now. Dr. Gupta, thank you for being here.
At one level, we`ve not had the level of tension that we`ve had in March and April and May of 2020. On the other hand, we have this new strain. And we are a little confused as to what we are supposed to do about it.
DR. VIN GUPTA, MSNBC MEDICAL CONTRIBUTOR: Ali, it`s great to see you, good evening.
It`s true. And the fact that really worries me is that three and four adult Americans that are eligible for the next booster shot -- number three, that next booster shot -- have decided that they are not going to get it. Or in some cases if they are eligible for that fourth shot they are not going to get it. That is concerning in this era of a more transmissible variant.
[21:50:03]
Because, Ali, come the wintertime, if we are not up to date with our vaccines, those individuals who are high-risk are going to end up in the hospital because, while we focus so much on antibodies, blocking the virus from causing us to test positive, blocking the onset of a sore throat, the really key component here is something called T-cells that harbor pretty much in our lungs. They help prevent severe infection from occurring but it turns out that those T-cells do provide require periodic boosts. The people who most need them are not getting them. That`s why we are really concerned about the winter, potentially, surging again in hospitals.
VELSHI: So, I know they have been throwing away dosages of vaccines because of a certain shelf life and it`s not just in the United States - Canada, Germany, a lot of places are getting rid of vaccines.
Do you feel -- what is supposed to happen? It`s just a matter of everybody being up to date on their vaccine regimen? Or should we -- are we discussing more vaccines?
And what about this immune escape business? The idea that this new variant, BA.5, seems to be able to bob and weave its way our round you are inherent ability to fight this off because you have had COVID or because you have been vaccinated properly.
GUPTA: Well, Ali, that last point, I`ll take that first. That`s not unexpected. The contagious respiratory virus like flu, say, for the last 40 years, all of us have been immunized against flu, much longer than that. Flu evades and causes immune escape all the time. We test positive for flu even if we have gotten the shot. But it`s about 50 percent effective for keeping you out of the hospital.
That`s where we`re headed, a vaccine, we`re already there, a vaccine that is going to keep you away from someone like me but not prevent a positive test. This is entirely expected and we are going to have a more contagious variant likely occur down the road. We shouldn`t be surprised by it.
To your point, is there going to be an up to date vaccine come fall? With everybody wondering, should they wait for that fifth booster shot, but they haven`t gotten their third shot, should they wait for the fall to wait for an up today shot?
I would recommend you get that up today shot of you haven`t already. But once it becomes available in September, that`s going to give you strong protection against infection for a period of time. It will certainly keep you out of the hospital.
More broadly, Ali, we need to think about a therapeutic strategy -- I know the Biden administration is thinking about it, they are trying to institute test to tree -- but we need to be clear about the therapeutic strategy looks like I`m the winter and make it even easier than it is now.
VELSHI: And jumping to prevention, a lot of people talk about the fact that it is becoming just like the flu. But the distinction is, you always know when you have the flu. You are contagious once you have it. This continues to be something where people are contagious, in many cases, without having any idea that they are carrying the virus.
GUPTA: That`s right. That`s right. So, asymptomatic infections -- this is a big reason why this has become a whole pandemic. People are carriers, they don`t know, it they are fully vaccinated but they are still potentially contagious because they have vaccine breakthrough infections but they don`t have symptoms.
Turns, out for BA.5, for all your viewers out there, I get this question a lot -- you can be contagious for a longer period of time. Conventional wisdom, the era of the delta variant was five days and then he would test positive on day zero. If you are okay, you can take off that mask, potentially.
In this case, you are contagious up to, potentially, as long as eight days. So contagious this is for a longer period of time. The more people recognize that, you are fully tested and fully vaccinated, you can take off that mask better.
When that rapid test goes from positive to negative -- if there is enough to infect, there is enough to detect, I did make that up, someone else did. But it`s a good truism to live byu.
VELSHI: Vin, thanks as always for being so helpful to us and understanding these complicated matter.
Vin Gupta is an MSNBC medical contributor, a critical care pulmonologist and a faculty member at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington -- as always, thanks for your time, friend.
We have one more story ahead here tonight. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:58:00]
VELSHI: If you, like me, are a fan of Costco, and particularly the Costco concession stands, then you may have heard of their chicken bake. Chicken bake are made from chicken breast strips, mozzarella, provolone and parmesan cheese, smoky bacon, creamy scissor dressing, and green onions, and they are all wrapped up in a hand roll of cross, apparently very tasty.
And according to recent reports, the cost of the Costco chicken baked just went up big time, from $2.99 to $3.99. Costco`s fountain sodas also reportedly went up by ten cents. Now, the cost of a Costco chicken bake is not a standard economic indicator but you don`t have to go out of your way to find stories about all the things that have gone wrong with the economy -- skyrocketing gas prices, inflation, the volatility of the stock market, talk about a possible recession.
So, given that, tonight we would like to leave you with some positive economic news. Today, we learned that the United States gained 372,000 new jobs last month, rolling past projections and continuing to trend this year of strong job growth. The unemployment rate has held steady since May at 3.6 percent -- that`s extremely low.
Today, the price of gas had its biggest single day drop in more than a decade. In fact, gas prices have been falling for the past 24 days. That`s the longest streak of declines since April of 2020, when we were in the heart of COVID.
Gas prices are still higher than they were a year ago. But if recent trends hold, that should provide some relief for drivers. These things taken together don`t necessarily indicate a trend. But we want to mark this moment and show that it is not all bad.
And as for Costco raising prices at their food court, don`t worry. The company says it has no plans to change the price of $1.50 hotdog so the combo. So, see? It`s not all bad.
That does it for it tonight. Rachel will be here on Monday.
I will see you in the morning on my show "VELSHI". The Velshi banned book club is back in session this week. I`m joined by Ashley Hope Perez, author of "Out of Darkness", a work of historical fiction that weaves together themes of racism, misogyny and interracial love in 1930s Texas. It has been targeted, challenged, banned all over the country, including once, famously, following a viral video of an angry parent attacking the book at a local school board meeting. That`s this weekend at 8:00 a.m. Eastern.
Time now for "THE LAST WORD" with Jonathan Capehart filling in for Lawrence.
Good evening, Jonathan.