Former White House counsel Pat Cipollone is subpoenaed by the January 6 Committee. Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal discusses the Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision. Former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows` political career is examined. Does the tragic death of 53 migrants in Texas expose Republican lies and hypocrisy on immigration policies? The conservative Supreme Court blocks the creation of a majority black congressional district in Louisiana.
JOY REID, MSNBC HOST: Tonight on THE REIDOUT:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ERIC HERSCHMANN, FORMER WHITE HOUSE ATTORNEY: Now I`m going to give you the best free legal advice you`re ever getting in your life. Get a great effing criminal defense lawyer. You`re going to need it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: Those words from Trump lawyer Eric Hirshhorn (sic) were directed at John Eastman. But after yesterday`s explosive testimony, that advice could equally well-apply to Donald Trump.
But, first, we begin tonight with breaking news from the January 6 Committee. Former White House counsel Pat Cipollone has been subpoenaed.
He had previously refused to cooperate, and it cannot come at a more critical time, with new legal exposure for the twice impeach former president after former aide to Mark Meadows Cassidy Hutchinson provided what certainly looks like a smoking gun to support multiple possible criminal charges against Trump, starting with perhaps the most damning aspect of her testimony, as Hutchinson exposed in the clearest detail yet that the former president was aware of the threat of violence from his supporters on January 6.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CASSIDY HUTCHINSON, FORMER AIDE TO MARK MEADOWS: I was in the vicinity of a conversation where I overheard the president say something to the effect of: "I don`t effing care that they have weapons. They`re not here to hurt me. Take the effing mags away. Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol from here."
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: That testimony is especially damning in light of the former president`s speech at the Ellipse that day to his armed followers.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Fight like hell. And if you don`t fight like hell, you`re not going to have a country anymore.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: In fact, that kind of "fight like hell, fight, fight, fight" language was precisely what the former president`s lawyers said would be foolish to include.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HUTCHINSON: Both Mr. Herschmann and White House Counsel`s Office were urging the speechwriters to not include that language for legal concerns, and also for the optics of what it could portray the president wanting to do that day.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: Hutchinson offered ample references to explicit criminality, while recounting conversations with the then-White House counsel, the aforementioned Pat Cipollone, and specific crimes that he was worried about in the lead-up to the 6th involving a plan for the former president to march to the Capitol with his followers.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HUTCHINSON: Pat was concerned it would look like they were obstructing justice or obstructing the Electoral College count. He was also worried that it look like we were inciting a riot or encouraging a riot to erupt on the Capitol -- at the Capitol.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: In fact, Hutchinson added that Cipollone said this just before they left for the Ellipse:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HUTCHINSON: Mr. Cipollone said something to the effect of: "Please make sure we don`t go up to the Capitol, Cassidy. Keep in touch with me. We`re going to get charged with every crime imaginable if we make that movement happen."
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: Of course, thus far, Cipollone had refused to cooperate with the committee.
Another figure with questions to answer is also refusing to testify, at least for now, Ginni Thomas. An attorney representing her said in a letter to the committee that it needs to provide -- quote -- "better justification" for Thomas to provide testimony. That attorney claims that Thomas` correspondents with coup memo lawyer John Eastman, a former clerk to her husband, Justice Clarence Thomas, provides no basis for an interview.
And joining me now, Peter Strzok, former FBI counterintelligence agent, Nick Akerman, former assistant special Watergate prosecutor, and Paul Butler, Georgetown law professor and former federal prosecutor.
I`m going to go in reverse order and start with you, Paul.
The significance, in your view, of the subpoena of Pat Cipollone.
I`m going to read a little bit of this release here that says: "The Select Committee investigation has revealed evidence that Mr. Cipollone repeatedly raised legal and other concerns about President Trump`s activities on January 6 and in the days that proceeded. While the Select Committee appreciates Mr. Cipollone`s earlier informal engagement with our investigation, the committee needs to hear from him on the record, as other former White House counsels have done in other congressional investigations.
"Any concerns Mr. Cipollone has about the institutional prerogatives of the office he previously held are clearly outweighed by the need for his testimony."
Your thoughts on this subpoena, Paul, given all of the things that he was concerned about, from the speech, to walking to the Capitol? He said they could be charged with every crime imaginable.
PAUL BUTLER, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: So, Joy, the House had to subpoena Pat Cipollone, but it`s probably not going to work.
With a House investigation, he will do the Trump thing of trying to beat the clock, and he will probably be able to stall by making bogus objections until the midterm elections, when the panel is likely to get neutralized or co-opted by Republicans.
But the feds can still hold Cipollone accountable. The FBI should have a nice sit down with them, or he needs to be hauled into a federal grand jury. He needs to be required to answer on the record why, on January 3, he told Trump he would face serious legal problems if he went to the rally, if he went to the Capitol.
Cipollone is the connection between the way that Trump incited the mob and the criminal legal theories that Trump had about alternate electors. But, so far, Cipollone is acting like a coward, not a patriot.
REID: You know, and or, or, Nick Akerman, the other way of thinking about this -- and there`s been a little bit of this sort of scuttlebutt out there -- that people like Cipollone, who wants to still appear to be loyal to Donald Trump, want to be subpoenaed, because then, like the documentary filmmaker who wants all his future documentary subjects to not think that he will snitch on them after filming them and then somehow be -- testified, he probably wanted it to come from a subpoena.
Therefore, he`s doing it because he`s under duress. Maybe the duress is what gives Cipollone the opportunity to speak out, because, here, by the way, he came down on the right side on all of these questions, urging Trump not to break the law.
NICK AKERMAN, FORMER ASSISTANT SPECIAL WATERGATE PROSECUTOR: No, I think you could be right.
We just don`t know what tack Cipollone belongs going to take. Paul may be 100 percent right that Cipollone is going to want to look as though he`s a loyal loyalist to Donald Trump.
On the other hand, he does come across from the testimony as being the person in the room that is basically telling Donald Trump not to commit any crimes. And he does come across as somebody who is on the right side on all of these issues.
So you`re right. A lot of times witnesses will come in only with a subpoena, so that it doesn`t appear as though they`re bending over backwards to cooperate. I mean, he really has no basis to fight the subpoena. He has no attorney-client privilege with Donald Trump. There is no attorney-client privilege for the office of House -- the White House counsel. He represents the institution, not the individual.
He doesn`t have Trump`s -- certainly doesn`t have any kind of executive privilege here, because executive privilege just doesn`t apply to criminal activity. I mean, that issue was resolved in 1974 in U.S. v. Nixon by the Supreme Court.
So, yes, he could wind up deciding, I`m going to take the subpoena, I have no choice, and be forced to testify. You could be 100 percent right. Paul could also be right. And we will just have to see what happens.
REID: We will have to see what happens.
But, meanwhile, Peter, I just want to remind people of what in real time Pat Cipollone was hearing and what he was understanding to be taking place. This is some of the video. This was some of the sort of video-audio bits that were played during this most recent hearing.
It`s damning stuff. It was clear that were people perched in trees with AR- 15s. Take a listen to a little bit of this.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Skinny white males, brown cowboy boots. They had Glock- style pistols in their waistbands.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: 8736 with a message, that subject`s weapon on his right hip.
That`s a negative. He`s in the tree.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Motor One, make sure PPD knows they have an elevated threat in the tree south side of Constitution Avenue. Look for the "Don`t Tread on Me" flag, American flag face mask, cowboy boots, weapon on the right-side hip.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I have got three men walking down the street in fatigues while carrying AR-15s. Copy at 14th and Independence.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
REID: Peter, from your law enforcement experience, can you think of any reason why any White House security detail, Secret Service, why any chief of staff would allow the president of the United States to be essentially accompanied by and mix in with people who were armed the way you just heard described, and then be allowed to go to the Capitol after having demanded that the armed people be allowed to go too?
PETER STRZOK, FORMER FBI COUNTERINTELLIGENCE AGENT: Well, Joy, I can`t imagine a more difficult domestic security setting than a riled-up mob where there are reports of people in trees with semiautomatic long guns, and you have got the president of the United States who is whipping that crowd into a frenzy, along with other folks, then demanding to march with them down to the Capitol.
And what`s interesting, when you look at the president`s statements that came out in the hearing that he allegedly said -- he didn`t say, they`re not here to hurt anyone. He said, they`re not here to hurt me.
So when you think about that, and you break it down -- and this, of course, was in the context of him, trying to get the Secret Service to remove the magnetometers to allow greater crowds to come in because it would be a better shot on TV.
But I`m continually stunned that there was not far more bloodshed on January 6 than occurred. And the more that this information comes out, this stunning footage of people in trees, where people in law enforcement are saying, we have got folks with AR-15s with long guns, with other -- not clubs not flagpoles, not stakes or canes, but actual semiautomatic rifles, that`s an extraordinarily dangerous situation.
And, again, I think we`re blessed that there was not far, far more bloodshed than we saw. And it just highlights how close we all were on January 6 to extraordinary violence.
REID: Well, can you imagine, to stay with you for just a moment, Peter, what might have happened, use your lurid imagination here, if Trump had been allowed to enter the Capitol, which apparently was his plan, entering the Capitol either with Secret Service, armed Secret Service accompanying him, or with Proud Boys and 3 Percenters and Oath Keepers accompanying him?
What might have happened inside of the chamber, inside of the House chamber?
STRZOK: Joy, I can`t even begin to try and fathom what that would look like, where Trump would go in, who he would demand to talk to, whether he would enter the chamber and try and make a speech in front of Congress or go into the Rotunda, what the Secret Service would do, on the one hand, trying to protect the president from harm, on the other hand, again, a crowd whipped into a frenzy that we know was armed, that we know was at that time or imminently about to start fighting Capitol Police and Metropolitan Police officers to forcefully gain entrance.
I don`t know how you have this violent activity going on all around the steps of the Capitol, on the East Side, the West Side, bear spray, people, I mean, all the images that we have seen again and again and again, and in the middle of that, to have President Trump and a motorcade driving up, exiting into this chaos, and trying to do something.
I -- it is difficult for me to envision. And I think it speaks exactly to the almost panic that you heard recounted about what Pat Cipollone was saying, that we can`t go down there because we will end up breaking so many different laws.
I can`t imagine what that scene would look like.
REID: It would like look a...
STRZOK: Just, I have to imagine, absolute chaos.
REID: It would look like a tin-pot coup, which is what it was.
Paul, let me ask you about this.
STRZOK: What it was.
REID: Because there is the sort of -- indeed.
I mean, Paul, there is the first person to the finish line, right, can maybe get a deal kind of thing that I know a little bit about just from knowing you and talking to you a lot about the way that prosecutors think.
So you have John Eastman. He`s dropped his lawsuit, essentially, to keep his call logs away from the committee, meaning he`s now becoming more cooperative. We know that his phone was seized. He`s going through some things right now.
When you have got that kind of thing happening and some people started to cooperate with the committee -- this is not necessarily to do with any legal case -- does that start to put the fear of God, in your mind, into other people who, I don`t know, may have wanted a partner and may know -- think they committed crimes?
So the House panel is getting closer and closer. And, hopefully, the prosecutors at the Justice Department are playing super close attention, because people very close to Trump are being embroiled in this scandal.
So, yesterday, we heard from Cassidy Hutchinson. She was in proximate contact with the two most powerful people in the country, with Trump and his chief of staff, her boss.
And so I think that Eastman knows that there`s the world before Cassidy Hutchinson`s testimony and the evidence we have before and the evidence that we have after. The evidence that we have after is increasingly pointed the spotlight at people at the top, including Donald Trump.
And so he`s hoping now that he`s this obscure law professor. Maybe he could be a kind of small fish and help get the big fish. Maybe. But on the other hand, he`s been kind of crazy. He`s kind of wacky. And so who knows. He doesn`t seem to be kind of -- it doesn`t add up when he does his math.
For example, he wanted to represent himself. So I`m not sure he`s at a point where he`s making any kind of rational decisions.
BUTLER: But a lawyer would tell him, cooperate.
REID: You`re saying not all the eggs are in the skillet. I hear you.
Let`s go to all of the potentials, Nick Akerman. I`m going to give you the task of talking about what potential crimes are on the table here. We had Liz Cheney describing what should did sound like witness tampering and say, hey, don`t you know Donald Trump reads these transcripts. He wants to see that you`re loyal.
We have got that on the table. You have got what sure sounds like sedition the part of Trump, wanting to lead an armed insurrection personally into the Capitol, potentially trying to assault his own Secret Service agents to force them to take him, which, of course, we`re -- we have questions about that. I would sure love to have those Secret Service agents on the record testifying under oath about that.
What could Trump, in theory, be facing legally?
AKERMAN: Well, I think, if I were drafting the indictment right now, I`d be looking at this as an overall scheme to defraud the United States by stealing the election from Joe Biden.
And, as part of that scheme, the overriding falsehood in that scheme was Donald Trump`s big lie that he won the election by a landslide and that it was stolen from him, which has been proven right across the boards by his own attorney general, who told him he didn`t win, by his own numbers guy, who told him he didn`t win, and by virtue of just common sense, because, since 2016, when he first ran for president in the primaries, Roger Stone invented this whole Stop the Steal forum, which he`s been using ever since.
So this is just a tactic. And as part of this tactic, he then went on to try and pressure state authorities in battleground states to change the vote from him -- from Biden to himself. He called up Raffensperger, the secretary of state of Georgia. He called up Governor Kemp to try and get him to call a special session of the legislature in Georgia and to also decertify the vote for Biden.
And when those things didn`t work, including Randy (sic) Bowers, who he also tried to pressure, who is the speaker of the House in Arizona...
AKERMAN: ... when that didn`t work, he then tried to get a new attorney general who would write a letter to the state legislators saying that election was won by fraud.
REID: Right. Yes.
AKERMAN: And then, on top of all that, he tried to pressure Mike Pence -- a scheme to pressure Mike Pence into basically refusing to certify the vote and came up with this crazy scheme of illegal electors, that he just made up electors in the battleground states...
AKERMAN: ... that he wanted Mike Pence to count, instead of the real electors.
AKERMAN: And when all of that didn`t work, we found out yesterday that his last-ditch effort was to use violence to stop the vote on January 6. That was the whole point of it.
AKERMAN: We didn`t know this before yesterday.
AKERMAN: Today, we know that, in fact, his plan, ultimately, his ultimate plan was to stop that vote on January 6 by creating violence and mayhem...
AKERMAN: ... throughout the Capitol, such that, the next day, they could all claim, well, the states should reconsider the vote.
REID: Yes. Yes.
Well, summarized pretty well. We will see if it ever actually goes to court.
Peter Strzok, Nick Akerman, Paul Butler, thank you all very much.
Up next on THE REIDOUT: Well, we didn`t talk about Mark Meadows. His utter failure to do his job as the insurrection raged on, on Capitol Hill is the culmination of a political career riddled with bad judgment.
The REIDOUT continues after this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HUTCHINSON: That`s when I went into his office. I saw that he was sitting on his couch on his cell phone, same as the morning, where he was just kind of scrolling and typing.
"The rioters are getting really close. Have you talked to the president?"
And he said: "No, he wants to be alone right now," still looking at his phone.
So, I start to get frustrated. I remember thinking in that moment, Mark needs to snap out of this, and I don`t know how to snap him out of this, but he needs to care.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: At yesterday`s hearing, we heard about the striking contrast between the enraged, violence-prone Donald Trump and his completely zombified chief of staff, Mark Meadows, on January 6, who would only be brought back into his body by one of his top aides, Cassidy Hutchinson, as the MAGA ma broke into the Capitol, mentioning that Jim might be in danger, Jim meaning Congressman Jim Jordan.
Now, mind you, the chief of staff is supposed to be the most active member of the White House team. And Hutchinson`s testimony depicted Meadows as someone who was anything but that on that critical day.
Meadows was Donald Trump`s fourth chief of staff in just over three years, and he was probably the most closely aligned with the extreme MAGA movement because of who Mark Meadows is. He emerged from the Tea Party movement, along with his friend Jim Jordan, and was first elected to the House in 2012, campaigning on the birtherism conspiracy theory.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARK MEADOWS, FORMER WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: What we`re going to do is take back our country; 2012 is the time that we`re going to send Mr. Obama home to Kenya or wherever it is. We`re going to do it.
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: Huh. You`re talking about, what, to Illinois, to Hawaii?
Once in Congress, he found what was at the time the most -- founded, co- founded what was at the time the most far right obstructionist conservative group, the House Freedom Caucus, with the likes of people like Jordan and Ron DeSantis. Good company, right?
In 2013, Meadows helped engineer the fourth longest federal government shutdown in our country`s history, in hopes of stopping the Affordable Care Act. That shutdown cost the U.S. economy an estimated $24 billion. He has long advocated against the LGBTQ community, saying back in 2013 that, if the Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage, it would undermine democracy itself and spark a -- quote -- "constitutional crisis."
He also signed on to a 2019 amicus brief to the Supreme Court advocating against adding LGBTQ people as protected under the Civil Rights Act because LGBTQ people do not actually exist for him, but, rather, are choosing -- quote -- "actions, behaviors or inclinations."
Meadows also supported alleged child molester Roy Moore when he ran for the Senate in Alabama in 2017. Moore denied those allegations.
And we cannot forget, in 2019, when Meadows paraded Lynne Patton, a black member of the Trump administration, like a prop during a hearing of former Trump attorney Michael Cohen to challenge Cohen`s claims that Trump is a racist. Not once was she allowed to say word. Meadows spoke for her.
The list could just go on and on. And when it comes to January 6, we continue to learn more and more about what Meadows knew ahead of time about the dangers on January 6. Worse than his inaction might have been his inclination to not protect our democracy even his former colleagues in Congress and their staffs from bodily harm, but, rather, protecting the insurrectionists themselves.
A report last year from the January 6 Committee says that Meadows sent an e-mail prior to January 6, saying that the National Guard would be present at the Capitol to -- quote -- "protect the pro-Trump people."
Joining me now is Tim Miller, writer at large for The Bulwark and author of "Why We Did It: A Travelogue from the Republican Road to Hell."
Subtle title there, my friend.
Tim, let`s talk about this for a moment, because the January 6 -- the sort of picture, like, of an almost catatonic Mark Meadows sort of emerges throughout Cassidy Hutchinson`s testimony. But wouldn`t he be the one person out of everyone in the administration who would know, exactly what Donald Trump knew, exactly what Donald Trump had planned?
And if Donald Trump did plan to have violence as part of his plan, wouldn`t he know that?
TIM MILLER, THE BULWARK CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I think it`s -- always hesitant to accuse the former president of having any kind of plan.
This was an emoter, reactor. But, certainly, Mark Meadows knew about Donald Trump`s feelings and emotions and whims better than anyone else. And, remember, you went through that great rap sheet of Meadows` past week, but skipped over so much time, skipped over when he lied about Donald Trump`s COVID diagnosis, when -- and about how serious it was, when Trump went to the hospital.
And it was Meadows, remember, that was sitting with Trump that whole time in the hospital, was the only one at times besides the family that was in the room. So he had built that rapport with Trump. And he was the one who, as we have seen from the other parts of these committee hearings, who was receiving the crazy e-mails from Ginni Thomas and the pillow guy and Sidney Powell that were accusing the Venezuelan -- dead Venezuelan president of changing the machines.
Meadows was bought in on all of that. He was not part of what Bill Stepien called team normal, right? I mean, Meadows was fully bought in on trying to overturn the election. And so I think that the most -- that`s why I agree, for all the crazy revelations about Trump yesterday, because Cassidy was so close with Meadows, I thought that was the most critical thing.
She has him dead to rights. He knew that there could be violence. She testified to that. And then, when the violence was being perpetrated, he did nothing. He was the most powerful person, short of Donald Trump, in the whole country as far as being able to call in the National Guard, call in people able to help. He did nothing.
He was -- I will use -- I love that word catatonic.
MILLER: And so I think that he`s the key man right now, the critical man to bring in to continue to find out more information.
REID: Yes, it was as if he left his body every time she opened her mouth to tell her -- only saying Jim Jordan like kind of snapped him out of it. That is his Tea Party friend.
I left out the he also committed election fraud, pretended he lived in a trailer in North Carolina that he didn`t even own in order to vote there, and that he was investigated for it.
I want to play another sound bite of Cassidy Hutchinson. And this is when she`s describing -- this is her trying to tell Mark Meadows, who is the chief of staff, that the protesters had breached the Capitol, they were nearing the Capitol. And here`s what happens.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HUTCHINSON: So, when I had gone over to the car, I went to open the door to let him know, and he had immediately shut it. I don`t know who he was speaking with.
It wasn`t something that he regularly did, especially when I would go over to give him information. So, I was a bit taken aback.
REP. LIZ CHENEY (R-WY): And were you able to have that conversation a few moments later?
HUTCHINSON: Probably about 20 to 25 minutes later. There was another period between where he shut the door again.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: Tim, one of the big mysteries that`s going to come out of this whole hearing is, who was he talking to? Because it wasn`t Trump, because Trump was giving his speech at the time.
REID: He does seem to be somebody who`s in particular jeopardy.
He is somebody who also got a million dollars from Trump from that $250 million slush fund. So Trump has kept him paid. I wonder if -- I have this theory that Trump is just sort of a next generation of the Tea Party, right?
A lot of his strongest supporters are Tea Party people, like Jim Jordan, like him, right, that they`re the Tea Party, and that`s the outgrowth of it.
Are these people strong enough MAGA to go to jail for Donald Trump?
MILLER: I think that he -- that needs to be tested.
And, obviously, he has been subpoenaed already. I think this is someone that possibly should be indicted very soon. That was my biggest takeaway yesterday. I will leave it to legal experts on how, but the previous segment covered that.
I think that he should be indicted. And the financial part of this -- I`m glad you mentioned that, Joy -- is really relevant. When I was working on the book, I was interviewing some people that used to work for him and trying to figure out why -- this was a question. Look, why are people going along with this?
And that was something that people kept coming back to with Meadows, is that, when he left, he is not financially secure like many of these other folks that are that are independently wealthy. So I think that`s an important element.
And the other element to this is that he has to feel just this deep shame and guilt. I mean, Cassidy Hutchinson was his closest adviser. It`s crazy that his closest adviser as a 24-year-old woman, by the way, to the chief of staff.
MILLER: That`s such an important role.
But this was because his closest adviser. And he`s left her hung out to dry. And she was one that had the courage to stand up yesterday. Think about how helpless that leaves him and how filled with guilt and shame. And I think that that`s a big reason why you`re going to see someone that feels that bad is going to lash out.
And I think that will continue this kind of behavior that we have seen from him.
REID: You know, I like you, Tim? You`re such a hopeful person that you think that people still have shame.
REID: That they can still feel shame. And that makes me understand why you are a...
REID: ... and positive....
MILLER: No, Mark Meadows has shame. He cried. He cried. Remember when he cried. He cried when he was called a racist on the House floor recently.
REID: He did.
MILLER: This is a person that can still feel a little bit of shame.
REID: And then he showed the black lady, and he said, look at her.
MILLER: I don`t know if Donald Trump can, but Mark Meadows can.
REID: He did. No, he said, look at her. Is she not black?
MILLER: Yes, exactly.
REID: Is she not black? Is she not standing here before you being black in front of you? How dare you?
Yes, he did do that.
REID: Tim Miller.
REID: Look at her. Look at her.
Tim Miller, thank you very much. I appreciate you. Have a good rest of the day.
All right, the reversal of Roe v. Wade has some states scrambling to protect women`s reproductive rights, while others are gleefully working to strip them away entirely.
Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal joins me next.
REID: The Supreme Court`s draconian decision to overturn Roe v. Wade is politically unpopular, with the majority of Americans opposing it.
It`s left us in a situation where women have been deemed by the court to have fewer rights than men. And women have more rights in some states than they do in others. The ruling has already created a legal mess, with abortion totally banned in some red states, other bans caught up in court, and some states just waiting for their bans to take effect, a kind of rolling prohibition.
Essentially, your reproductive rights depend on if you live in a Democratic state; 22 state attorneys general issued a statement on Monday proclaiming that they will not back down in the fight to protect abortion access. But that`s easier said than done, even in some purple states.
Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer is currently fighting an antiquated law that is so old, it barely reads in modern English, banning the intent thereby to procure the miscarriage of any such woman. That one is from 1931, but cannot hold a candle to Wisconsin`s 1849 law, which criminalizes destroying the life of an unborn quick child, referring to the quickening, an archaic term used to refer to a fetus becoming alive.
And late today, Arizona`s Republican attorney general said that that state`s 1864 ban was back in effect, and that he would ask the court to vacate the injunction put into place after Roe v. Wade.
Republicans aren`t just sticking to those olden day laws. They`re also -- they have also introduced a law in Michigan in case that 1931 law does not hold up in court that would include harsh penalties for providers and would also ban the dug Plan B.
The ban in Missouri is so ambiguous that a hospital system temporarily stopped providing Plan B yesterday to their rape victims, out of fear that they are somehow violating it.
Just a quick lesson for everyone. Plan B is categorically not abortion. If you`re pregnant already, Plan B will not work. All it does is delay your body from releasing an egg, making it impossible for fertilization to occur.
Late today, the hospital reversed its position, after Missouri`s Republican governor and attorney general said the law in fact does not extend to contraception.
REID: And joining me now is Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal of Washington state, chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
Thank you so much for being here.
And I apologize for my dog also being here.
REID: She decided she wants to be part of the show.
REP. PRAMILA JAYAPAL (D-WA): I have two.
REID: That`s Nala.
Well, so let`s talk about this.
There were -- the thing that has struck, I think, a lot of people, quite frankly, Congresswoman, is the absolute aggression of Republicans, the quick aggression in every single red state, where they`re going and digging up laws from the 19th century or the early 20th century, putting them in place immediately and going hard, saying, you can`t leave the state. We will prosecute you if you fly out of state or drive out of state, that kind of thing, whereas the Democrats, the response has felt muted, I think, to a lot of people.
You had the White House say, well, it will be dangerous to try to provide abortion services on federal land, which was something that was proposed by some advocates, and I think even Elizabeth Warren. You have had the administration, essentially, it`s already reported that they`re unlikely to go with this list of ideas that Senator Warren and others have given to them that could, like, use the federal power.
The Senate tried to codify abortion protections, passing Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley`s bill that -- bill that came out of the House, but it got filibustered.
So are you concerned that the official party response has been too muted?
JAYAPAL: Well, Joy, the first thing is, we just cannot stop talking enough about these radical, extremist Republicans and what they`re doing across the country digging in to try to find every way that they can criminalize pregnant people across the country.
And that is really, really important, because they`re doing things that are not -- I mean, they`re going to be challenged in court on some of these things, obviously, but it is really creating fear and trauma for people across the country.
Now, in terms of Democrats, I think that the White House -- the main leverage that the White House has is with medication abortion. Because of the Hyde Amendment, the hands are tied in terms of using federal lands and some of the other things that we were all trying to come up with in the moment.
But, because of the Hyde Amendment, hands are tied. And so the way that probably the White House is going to be able to have the biggest impact is around medication abortion. That is making sure that people can obtain pills in their pharmacies. They did pass a rule in December of 2020, overturning a Trump rule that was there before.
But the FDA is moving relatively slowly on this. And we need urgency because this is a crisis. And you`re going to hear me say this again and again.
JAYAPAL: We need telehealth, because this is a crisis. And so the White House has said they`re going to do these things with Secretary Becerra. And I appreciate that.
I think we just need the urgency. And then we also need the bully pulpit of the White House to be used. And so I hope that we see not only Vice President Harris. I hope we see the president coming out and saying that he supports carving out an exception to the filibuster to codify Roe v. Wade, if we get two more Democrats, pro-choice Democrats, into Congress in the Senate.
JAYAPAL: But all of that, Joy...
REID: Mm-hmm? Go ahead.
JAYAPAL: I was just going to say, you have heard me talk about eliminating the filibuster, right?
JAYAPAL: And the system is broken.
And what`s happening in the vacuum of the Senate not acting on everything from voting rights, to abortion rights, to gay marriage, you name it, gun reform, is the Supreme Court, a radical extremist Republican-controlled Supreme Court, is stepping into that vacuum, and now using this vacuum as an opportunity to overturn settled precedent, not just Roe, but, as we know, signaled with the majority`s opinion and with Clarence Thomas concurring opinion, Griswold, Lawrence.
You can go through and name them all, Obergefell, all of these things. And so that`s why it`s so important that we take bold executive action, that Congress, that the House pass whatever we can pass, that the two senators who said that they were misled by these members of -- by these members of the Supreme Court, that they -- I think it`s incumbent on them to actually turn around and vote for an exception to the filibuster to codify this now.
Do I think that`s going to happen? Maybe not. So that`s why the November ballot box then becomes so important.
REID: I`m glad that you explained that. And I wish we had more time. But I think it`s very hard to convince people to give Democrats more power, when people feel, well, you`re not using the power you have.
But thank you for explaining the House is passing all the bills.
JAYAPAL: That`s right.
REID: The Senate is where they`re dying.
JAYAPAL: That`s right.
REID: And if you don`t get two more senators in there to replace those two who aren`t playing ball, nothing gets through that Senate. So that`s how you really get power.
REID: You got to add more people.
JAYAPAL: That`s right.
REID: That is -- unfortunately, that`s what you got to do.
Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal, thank you very much. Really appreciate you.
And up next: The tragic death of 53 migrants in Texas exposes Republican lies and hypocrisy on immigration policies, as we await a Supreme Court ruling on Trump`s controversial remain-in-Mexico restrictions.
We will be right back.
REID: On Monday, the dead bodies of 51 migrants were discovered in an abandoned tractor trailer without any air conditioning.
They were found on the outskirts of San Antonio, where a city worker heard a cry from inside the truck. More than a dozen survivors were taken to the hospital. Two later died, bringing the death toll to 53. Five children are said to be among the dead.
A Mexican official confirmed that 27 of the victims were Mexicans, 14 were Hondurans, and seven were Guatemalans. Officials are still trying to determine the identities and nationalities of the remaining victims.
Today, the United States, Mexico, Honduras and Guatemala announced that they were working together on the investigation. Three people have already been taken into custody. Immigration experts tell NPR that the migrants were not likely brought over the border from Mexico in the truck.
They were more likely brought in through a very sophisticated operation that entails vast networks into Mexico, Central America and all throughout the United States. They suspect that the migrants were loaded into the truck somewhere in the United States.
Now, sadly, this has happened before. In San Antonio, 39 migrants were found in similar conditions back in 2017; 10 ultimately died from heat exposure.
Joining me now is Maria Hinojosa, founder and CEO of Futuro Media Group and Pulitzer Prize-winning producer and host of the "Suave" podcast series.
Great to see you, my friend.
Let`s talk about this. It is incredibly tragic, but it feels like these are the kinds of tragedies that happen when you make migration so hard that people become so desperate that they`re willing to climb into or put even their children into the back of un-air conditioned truck.
MARIA HINOJOSA, PRESIDENT AND FOUNDER, FUTURO MEDIA GROUP: Joy, it`s good to see you too, sweetie.
Listen, as I was thinking about this -- and, right now, what you`re going to hear is, it`s the smugglers` fault, it`s the smugglers` fault, it`s the smugglers` fault.
I have been covering this for several decades now. And smugglers have been bringing people over in all of the entirety of the time that I have been covering this story. And you didn`t used to hear these kinds of stories, these kinds of deaths.
This is, in fact, a result of the police state that exists now along the U.S.-Mexico border in general. And, in Texas, people just don`t realize you can`t kind of just get in a car and drive through the state of Texas. The Border Patrol is everywhere. There are checkpoints.
And this is what people will resort to. It is horrible. It`s just an absolute horrible, horrible death. And it feels even more difficult in a moment when our country is just -- everybody`s reeling. And it`s like this is part of our country too.
REID: Yes, I mean, particularly -- and Texas has had more than its fair share of death and horror.
But this is now a multicountry, tragedy. People from multiple countries died in the back of that truck. The governor of Texas is trying to, of course, use it for political fodder, blaming President Biden
But the reality is, we still have the remain-in-Mexico policies of Donald Trump. The Supreme Court is right now litigating whether or not the Biden administration has to continue to operate based on Trump`s rules, which they are currently doing.
If we -- if the president of the United States can`t even change the rules by which migration is sort of policed at the border, what can we do?
Now, the whole remain-in-Mexico policy has -- it was created by the Trump administration. So you`re right. The problem is that the Biden administration has not been able to rescind it and now may be forced, because of this very strange Supreme Court that we have in power in the United States of America.
Joy, what can I tell you? Because I was recently on the Arizona-Mexico border. And what you see is, the remain-in-Mexico policy is -- it`s created havoc, because, instead of a situation in which there was some kind of order, a processing of people, returning them to places, cities where there was some kind of support for them, the remain-in-Mexico is basically, oh, we see you, we just take you and throw you across the border, wherever you are.
So that means that you are taking people and forcing them into a much more vulnerable situation. We have been reporting about this, Joy. How much more can we say? That the people who died --for example, these people, the 53 people who died, they were the people who still have dreams about this country, Joy.
They`re the ones who still think the capacity of this country to deliver on these dreams, and yet they are dying because of heat and because of trying to get away from the Border Patrol.
REID: Yes, and indifference.
I mean, we`re in a situation right now where it is laughably impossible to even think about passing immigration reform. Even just a straight DACA bill would never go through the United States. It would be filibustered. There would never be enough Republicans for it, because they have decided to make immigrants the enemy.
It`s part of their campaign platform. And you don`t have enough Democrats who are willing to mess with the filibuster. You have got two who basically side with Republicans.
So I don`t know how you give hope to communities when everything feels paralyzed, in terms of the power, to change it.
HINOJOSA: Look, you know that this is the long haul, right?
Here`s a piece of data that people need to know. The Latino and Latina voting cohort, we don`t vote as a bloc, but we are the second largest voting cohort in the United States of America. The median age of Latinos and Latinas is 11 years old.
This will not be forever. This kind of very specifically anti-Latino, anti- black immigrant and refugee kind of targeting, the kinds of things that we now are ashamed of that people -- that this government did during the height of the Nazi era, that will ultimately go away, Joy. This can -- this is not sustainable.
And Latinos and Latinas ultimately will, in fact -- in fact, as we have, turn out to the polls more consistently. The issue is the Democratic Party and what they do. And at this point, as you know, Joy, I`m like, listen, President Biden do something even performative. We will take it.
But the lack of action, it`s going to come back to bite you. And, frankly, now we know that bites all of us.
REID: Yes, absolutely, because we`re all intertwined. And we surely know that now in this era.
Maria Hinojosa, my friend, it is so good to see you, even under these circumstances. Thank you.
And still ahead: The conservative Supreme Court blocks the creation of a majority black congressional district in Louisiana, because, of course, diluting the voting power of black people. Surprise.
We`re back after this.
REID: The past several days, well, hell, the past several weeks have felt like one long never-ending nightmare. And it just keeps getting worse.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court used its favorite tactic, the shadow docket, to decide that Louisianians would not be allowed to have two majority black districts in the state.
The conservative justices put on hold a lower court ruling that said the state had to draw new congressional districts, because the map that the Republican legislature drew and will now use was racially gerrymandered.
A third of Louisiana, 33 percent, is African-American. And despite that, they will not get proportional representation. This fall, the state map will ensure five majority white districts out of six.
Even more disturbing -- and this is really pretty upsetting -- is that this is yet another signal that the conservative majority on this Supreme Court seems eager and ready to invalidate the seminal civil rights era Voting Rights Act, for the same reason that they overturned a woman`s right to choose, simply because they can.
And that is tonight`s REIDOUT. "ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES" starts now.