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

Transcript: The ReidOut, 9/8/22

Guests: Hugo Lowell, Shola Mos-Shogbamimu

Summary

Queen Elizabeth dies at the age of 96. The legacy of Queen Elizabeth`s reign is examined. Steve Bannon turns himself over to authorities in New York. Pioneering journalist Bernard Shaw is remembered.

Transcript

JOY REID, MSNBC HOST: Tonight on THE REIDOUT:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LIZ TRUSS, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: It is a day of great loss. But Queen Elizabeth II leaves a great legacy.

Today, the crown passes, as it has done for more than 1,000 years, to our new monarch, our new head of state, His Majesty, King Charles III. God save the king.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

REID: After a remarkable 70-year reign, Queen Elizabeth dies peacefully at home in Scotland.

Tonight, the drastic changes to her empire over the years and the persistent fascination with her family here in the former colonies, as the British people grieve the only monarch most of them have ever known.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She`s been part of my life forever. And she -- yes, she`s gone. And you hope, but you appreciate that. Her age, it was expected at some point. But even when it happens, it`s still a shock.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

REID: And we begin tonight with Queen Elizabeth, the longest-reigning British monarch, whose rule spanned seven decades. She died today at the age of 96.

And, make no mistake, it is a watershed moment. The second Elizabethan era has ended. There is a new king. And it`s a moment intrinsically tied to this specific queen, a towering figure so profound, her very name defines an age. While her death raises important questions about how or even if the monarchy will go on, it isn`t just Britons mourning or reacting.

It`s people all across the globe and certainly here in the U.S., where fascination of the royal family reached a fever pitch during the Princess Diana years, and in many ways continues today.

Moments ago, President Biden and the first lady signed condolence books at the British Embassy in Washington to honor Queen Elizabeth.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We mourn for all of you. She was a great lady. We`re so delighted we got to meet her.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

REID: The president will also address the queen`s death tonight, as world leaders extend their condolences to the royal family and to the British people.

Queen Elizabeth was the second longest-reigning monarch in history. French King Louis XIV ruled the longest of all. But the span of history that Queen Elizabeth lived is remarkable, covering 14 U.S. presidencies. That`s nearly 30 percent, by the way, of all of American history.

She saw 15 British prime ministers come and go. Her first, Winston Churchill, was born in 1874. Compare that to Britain`s newest prime minister, Liz Truss, who was born in 1975. That is an entire century between the birth years of these leaders who served this queen.

As leaders changed, as countries fought for independence, often from the British themselves, Queen Elizabeth remained both a figure and witness to a tumultuous period spanning the mid-20th century to the first quarter of the 21st.

Crowned in 1953 at Westminster Abbey, the first ever coronation to be televised, making her essentially the first television queen, stepping into her role just years after India won its independence from British colonial rule, in a famous speech, Elizabeth and a princess in 1947 made this promise as she celebrated her 21st birthday on a royal tour in South Africa.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

QUEEN ELIZABETH II, UNITED KINGDOM: I declare before you all that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service and to the service of our great imperial family, to which we all belong.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

REID: We cannot talk about this queen or the British monarchy or even the U.K. itself without confronting the colonial horrors of this period, the violence, and how Queen Elizabeth, as institution and as icon, reigned during the remarkable decline of the British Empire, from the wave of independence sweeping across Africa and the Caribbean during the 1960s, Kenya, Malawi, Zambia, Botswana, Nigeria, South Africa, Ethiopia, Guyana, Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago.

The list just goes on and on and on -- to the British handing Hong Kong back to China, ending more than 150 years of colonial rule. British overseas territories do still exist. The hammer hasn`t completely fallen, but its apex -- at its apex, the British Empire claimed roughly a quarter of all the land on Earth.

The once global empire was crumbling before Elizabeth ascended to the throne, yet much of its decline occurred during her reign, as dozens of new states fought for and achieved independence. This, too, will forever exist as part of her legacy, the last colonial queen.

[19:05:01]

Joining me now is NBC`s Kelly Cobiella in Edinburgh, Scotland, and Dr. Shola Mos-Shogbamimu, lawyer, activist and author of "This Is Why I Resist."

And I want to go to you first, Kelly.

Tell us what`s going on today. We know this has been a day of mourning throughout the British Empire -- well, throughout the Great Britain, I should say, including in Scotland, where the royal family have their home.

KELLY COBIELLA, NBC NEWS FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT: That`s right, Joy.

And people are coming out tonight, braving the rain here in Scotland, as well as in London and in Windsor, to lay flowers to mark the moment when the queen, the longest-serving monarch in this country, a queen who has reigned over this country for 70 years, has now died.

We first knew something was not right at about half past noon, local time here in the U.K., when Buckingham Palace put out an unusual statement, unusual in its very strong language, saying that the queen`s doctors are concerned for Her Majesty`s health and that she was going to be watched by her doctors basically around the clock, that then followed by her children rushing to her side.

Prince Charles, now King Charles, and Princess Anne, were already in Scotland, her two younger children, Prince Andrew and Prince Edward, and Prince William, her grandson, Prince Harry both making their way to Balmoral, her country residents here in Scotland as well.

We knew that she hadn`t been doing all that well, particularly over the past year. We heard almost a year ago that she was having episodic mobility issues. But the palace never elaborated on that. We had no idea what the cause was or what the real issue was.

We did see her from time to time walking with a cane. But we also saw her walking of her own accord, under her own power, and, of course, the latest picture of her just two days ago, beaming, smiling widely in Scotland as she received the new prime minister, Liz Truss, but, again, at that time using a cane.

She has been canceling events lately as well. That was another clue that perhaps her health was deteriorating. She looked thinner and more frail. And then today, just six hours after that first statement came out from Buckingham Palace, another statement at 6:30 this evening local time, saying that the queen died peacefully this afternoon at Balmoral.

King Charles III put out his own statement after the queen`s death -- of course, he became king immediately upon her death -- saying that: "It`s a moment of great sadness for me and members of my family" and also making note of just the outpouring of emotion from people not just in this country, but in the commonwealth and around the world really, because she was a beloved and admired monarch in many parts of the world.

Over the next week-and-a-half, this country, of course, is in mourning. There will be ceremonies here in Scotland, as well as in London and in Windsor. The public will be invited to pay their respects as the queen lies in state in London next week, before she`s laid to rest at Windsor with her late husband, Prince Philip -- Joy.

REID: Thank you, NBC`s Kelly Cobiella in Edinburgh. Appreciate it.

All right, let`s bring in Dr. Shola Mos-Shogbamimu and MSNBC royal contributor Suzannah Lipscomb.

And, Ms. Lipscomb, I do want to go to you first.

I want to play this sound bite. This is from 1940. This was the first sort of public appearance. This was a radio broadcast by then-Princess Elizabeth. Take a listen.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

QUEEN ELIZABETH: We knew, every one of us, that, in the end, all will be well, for God will care for us and give us victory and peace. And when peace comes, remember, it will be for us, the children of today, to make the world of tomorrow a better and happier place.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

REID: You think about the fact this is a 14-year-old girl whose father was not originally meant to be king. He was the brother of the king. And he`s thrust into the monarchy.

And then that means that basically her life as being a normal little girl is over. But she definitely seemed to enter that era of her life with quite a bit of poise for such a young girl.

Can you talk a little bit about her and just her longevity and her ability to change and shift with the times?

Do we have Ms. -- do we have Suzannah Lipscomb? OK, I don`t think we have her.

So I`m going to go to Dr. Shola on this, because I think, for a lot of Britons, this is the only queen they have ever known. And we`re talking about people your age, your mother`s age and your grandmother`s age, probably. For most Britons from my family that are even over there, this is the only queen they have ever known.

[19:10:02]

She was able to adapt. She did prove to be remarkably adaptable.

SHOLA MOS-SHOGBAMIMU, WOMEN`S RIGHTS ACTIVIST: Well, I suppose the first thing I will say is, I think a lot of people, yes, are right now paying their respects at the longest-reigning monarch of the United Kingdom.

And people -- she meant different things to different people. I would question whether or not the monarchy was able to adapt, because I would say that, in the last number of years -- and I don`t mean the last few years -- I think there will be a question about whether or not they did adapt, because there were many cases where people felt that they were out of touch, right?

What she did stand for, I think, and what she represented was a system and a protocol and a way of the way things are and have always been. And I think, from that perspective, people saw her as a leader in that light, as somebody they could rely on with a stiff upper lip. And the queen is never changing.

So I would not necessarily agree that she was adaptable, so to speak. I mean, there`s so many different examples of where people felt that the royal family was out of touch.

REID: I said that because, when Diana came along, I think, for a lot of Americans, who are very much obsessed with it -- and, for whatever reason, these colonies or this country are very obsessed with the royal family, especially with Diana, who this very, very different kinds of royal, who reached out to patients with AIDS and young children would touch people without gloves on, people who were black and brown and around the world, and was just different.

And the royal family had to adapt to her. And it was wrenching for them to do it, but they had to do it. And then, when she died, the queen had to -- the public relations of it was so difficult, that she really had to embrace her in death in a way that I think was difficult.

And then you talk about Camilla, I mean, who was involved in that whole thing...

MOS-SHOGBAMIMU: Yes.

REID: ... where they now had to accept the idea that a divorcee could actually be queen.

I mean, so, in that sense, all of the -- I mean, there was a time when the Britons, they were not sure that they could invite a divorced person to go to a state dinner. And now they have somebody who is a divorced woman who is married to the now crowned king.

(CROSSTALK)

MOS-SHOGBAMIMU: Well, that`s correct.

But I would not say that the royal family -- I would not say that the royal family adapted to Princess Diana, because, quite frankly, the opposite is true.

REID: Yes.

MOS-SHOGBAMIMU: Because, if they had, then, when she passed away, it was because of the outrage of the public in not seeing any demonstration of affection or sorrow from the royal family, that forced the queen and the royal family to come out.

And Princess Diana was a whole different -- a whole different human being from the queen and from members of the royal family. What you saw with Princess Diana was somebody that was relatable. You kind of felt Princess Diana was your sister, your friend.

And she was -- she showed emotion. You didn`t really get that with the queen. The queen was very much arm`s length. I think people romanticized her, as you would, say, a grandmother. But the institution, that is, the monarchy, was very much at an arm`s length from the public.

So I would not say it`s the same thing. I think that, yes, you`re right that circumstances of the modern world forced them to have to take a step back and go, OK, look, we can`t carry on with, you can`t marry a divorced person, right?

REID: Right.

MOS-SHOGBAMIMU: They had to make changes, especially what happened with Princess Margaret. And there they had different stories.

So, with Charles, who had, I would say -- I mean, to be fair to him, he had borne the decision of his parents to marry somebody other than the person he really wanted to marry.

REID: Yes.

MOS-SHOGBAMIMU: I think it made sense at the end of the day for them to go, OK, we have tried, and that didn`t work out. OK, marry who you want to marry.

But I would not say they adapted as such, because then you have Meghan Markle...

REID: Right.

MOS-SHOGBAMIMU: ... which is perfect example again how the royal family has not adapted at all.

REID: Yes.

And let -- I do think we do now have Suzannah Lipscomb, because I want you to weigh in on this, because they -- it does seem that Queen Elizabeth, the late Queen Elizabeth, she did occupy this very unique space, in that she was doing what all the previous monarchs had done, but doing it on television, and on -- first on the radio, and then on television, and sort of living -- it was a much more public royal family, if I may say, more accessible, because you could see their lives, you could see them as a family.

Do you think that that has changed, to Dr. Shola`s point, the way that the institution evolved?

SUZANNAH LIPSCOMB, MSNBC ROYAL CONTRIBUTOR: Yes. I`m so sorry for leaving you hanging earlier there, Joy.

I think that`s absolutely part of it, because, of course, we know that hers was the first televised coronation. Half the adult population of Britain watched it, even though there were only 2.5 million TV sets in the country at the time, and then went on to choose to have her Christmas messages broadcast from 1957.

[19:15:07]

And so that meant that, each year, there was an opportunity, how -- albeit packaged in quite a formal way, to get some sense of who she was, what her values were. I mean, it`s interesting. If you want to know something about the queen, you need to look back at those Christmas messages.

She often talked about her Christian faith. She was invariably positive. She often talks about hope. I mean, there was a wonderful instance where there was one speech where she chatted with the royal children about the name of one of her corgis called Dash, and she says, the word you say when you`re cross.

And I think also, with the film from 1969, which gave an insight into their domestic lives as a royal family, which was watched by more people than watched man landing on the moon, there was an opportunity to see behind the veil.

But, at the same time, television was often unkind to them. They were parodied in the shows in the 1980s. We have seen more recently films like "The Queen" and the series "The Crown." And they have -- she`s never had a sort of right of rebuttal. She was never able to say anything in her defense.

And we have also most recently seen her humor, as we did, of course, at the platinum jubilee with the theme of Paddington then pulling the sandwich out of her handbag. So, I think that television has given us an insight into her life, at the same time as allowing her to be very publicly maligned.

REID: Indeed.

And I just have to show this, because it is sort of dramatic, the world that has -- that changed in the time that -- I really wish we had more time. This is the British Empire in 1945. When Elizabeth was crowned in 1952, Britain had a massive empire. It was more than 70 overseas territories.

And then, by 2015, you can see the reduction in just the scope and size to almost nothing. And I wonder how you feel about her having to preside over that massive change in what the British Empire was.

MOS-SHOGBAMIMU: I think this is why we have to accept that the queen means different things to different people, OK? And this is important to note.

Now, and just as you mentioned earlier, Joy, that because, at the time she came into -- became a queen, she came -- she became queen of the British Empire. And the British Empire was a colonizing empire, which made her a colonizer queen, right, just as right now, she`s revered as a global leader because she`s the head of state of the United Kingdom, which is recognized as a global power.

And I think two things can be true. I think that part of her legacy is that colonization. It is the atrocities that were committed in the name of queen or country during the colonizing period. And, yes, many countries fought hard. Many of them, many lives were lost, people imprisoned, even tortured, in order to be set free from Britain`s colonization, so to speak.

And she was the queen during that time. So, for a number of people, while people are trying to be respectful of her passing, because I`m respectful of her passing, I can respect her sense of duty, but what I cannot do is to look at her legacy through rose-tinted glasses. And I don`t think that would be right to do.

I don`t think that would make any sense. That is definitely not consistent with who I am. I think that, in order for us to fully encapsulate a legacy, it is important for us to understand the history, the legacy, what she -- what she did, what she did not do, what she failed to do.

So, for a lot of people like me, if she had led by being vocally visible against racial injustice and inequality in Britain and addressed both historical and present-day systemic racism, she would have had a lot of legitimacy and credibility in a number of nations, including those that still have her head of state, approving her as head of state.

So I think this is all part of it.

REID: Let me give Ms. Lipscomb the last word on this.

What do you think, overall, given how complex the legacy of the crown is, that her legacy will ultimately be?

LIPSCOMB: Well, I absolutely respect what`s being said about the British Empire and colonization.

I think, though, that, actually, if we were to really look to what the queen`s legacy has been, it`s been the creation of the commonwealth, which has been an institution that has been about people being equal and about creating alliances and professional -- professional associations.

[19:20:05]

And I think that she has -- it`s the commonwealth, in fact, that has -- that spoke out against, for example, apartheid or challenged a number of sort of practices in the 1970s, particularly, that were ones that were negative towards people of color.

And I -- so I feel like that, actually, the commonwealth has been an institution for good, and that, if we were to put her name to anything, it`s been presiding over the decolonization, the post-imperial world.

And that was the institution of which she was most proud. And it wouldn`t have got off the ground without her.

REID: Suzannah Lipscomb, Shola Mos-Shogbamimu, thank you both very much.

And up next on THE REIDOUT: She met 13 sitting U.S. presidents, 13 of them. Queen Elizabeth`s special relationship with the United States is next -- after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:25:14]

REID: Over the course of her lifetime, Queen Elizabeth met with 13 sitting U.S. presidents, hosting and visiting commanders in chief everywhere from Buckingham Palace to Baltimore`s baseball stadium.

She made her first president, Harry Truman, while still a princess, just 25 years old. Truman reportedly told her that he hoped: "When you leave, you will like us even better than when you came."

Elizabeth made her first state trip to the United States as queen in October of 1957, where she met with President Dwight D. Eisenhower. The two corresponded by letter for years afterwards. The queen even gave Eisenhower her recipe for grilled scones.

During the U.S. bicentennial celebration, President Gerald Ford danced with the queen at a state dinner to the song "The Lady Is a Tramp" played by the Marine Band. In 1982, the queen went horseback riding with President Ronald Reagan through the grounds of Windsor Castle. He later hosted Elizabeth and Philip at the Reagans` home in Santa Barbara, where the queen had her first experience with Tex-Mex cuisine, feasting on tacos and enchiladas.

In 1991, President George H.W. Bush took Queen Elizabeth to a Baltimore Orioles game, her first ever baseball game. During that trip, she also received a standing ovation when she became the first British monarch to address Congress.

The queen also met with President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama, who, during their first visit to Buckingham Palace, brought her a video iPod filled with photos and videos of the royal couple`s trips to the U.S. back in the 1950s -- or back to the 1950s.

And, most recently, in June of last year, the queen hosted President Biden and first lady Jill Biden at Windsor Castle for tea.

Joining me now is Jon Meacham, Pulitzer Prize-winning author, presidential historian and host of the "Fate of Fact" podcast.

Always good to see you, Jon Meacham.

Tell us about the special relationship, because my understanding is that the special relationship was the -- was the British idea -- it was Britain`s idea, and not ours.

JON MEACHAM, NBC NEWS HISTORIAN: It was.

As Harold Macmillan once said, the former prime minister, we are the Greeks in the new Roman Empire. They saw themselves as a civilizing force for these rude, wealthy New Worlders. And so they had an idea that their role in the world could, to some extent, be secured by a close alliance with us to sort of take us by the hand, as we toddled across the world stage

(LAUGHTER)

MEACHAM: The Americans had a different view, as you might imagine, but particularly during World War II, when Britain stood alone against fascism in the Western world after the fall of France.

They earned a good bit of our grateful capital.

REID: It`s interesting, because you go back, I mean, for those who watched -- I guess a lot of people watch "The Crown" and kind of get a lot of their ideas about what about -- about the family from that.

MEACHAM: Yes, sure.

(CROSSTALK)

REID: But, I mean, one of the things that is sort of striking is that Elizabeth, the line -- her line of succession came from the fact that her - - oh, wait a minute, I think Biden is speaking.

Are we going to Joe Biden?

Yes, let`s go to Joe Biden.

(JOINED IN PROGRESS)

BIDEN: ... for the people of the United Kingdom and the commonwealth in their grief.

Now, now let me talk about why we`re all here, 60 days, 60 days from the midterm elections.

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

BIDEN: So, I want to be crystal clear about what`s at stake on the ballot.

Your right to choose is on the ballot. No, this is a fact. These are not -- it`s not hyperbole, any of this. Your Social Security that you paid for is on the ballot. Look at what they put out. They want to do away with -- they want...

REID: OK, President Biden is now speaking about the midterm elections, so I`m going to go back to Jon Meacham, since we are talking about the queen.

I was going to say that she only became queen because her father had to step in, not just because her uncle married a divorcee, but his sympathies, his sympathies were not with the Allies.

MEACHAM: Yes.

REID: And so it is sort of Britain`s fate was sort of decided by the fact that he was pushed out, and that it was her father and then, of course, her. And so Britain could have had a very different fate.

MEACHAM: Oh, it was 19 -- late 1930s, you had a remarkable turn of events where Edward VIII, who had been the prince of Wales, who was sympathetic, to say the least, to what was unfolding in Germany and also in Italy, the tendency toward fascism, he abdicates, which opens the way for his brother.

And then he had -- they only had two daughters, Elizabeth II, as she became being this senior daughter. So she was not born expecting -- no one expected her to become to become queen. And I think it`s one of those fates -- it`s one of those moments that is what makes this story so interesting.

[19:30:13]

She`s born in the Roaring `20s. Her fate is shaped in the Depression, as it -- as the world is marching to war because of fascism, the remarkable resilience of the British people and the British royal family during the Blitz, which began right about now, in September 1940.

For 57 straight days and nights, the Luftwaffe bombed civilian targets in England, transforming warfare by making civilians into combatants. And it was -- her first radio address was in October 1940, where she -- you played some of it, where she talked about the dangers of war, and she served in uniform.

And that`s not myth, right? That`s not legend. All of that happened. Buckingham Palace was bombed. And Winston Churchill stood there and said: "If this long island story of ours is to end at last, let it only end when we are all choking in our blood upon the ground."

And that spirit of courage was infectious. And we forget Britain stood alone...

REID: Yes.

MEACHAM: ... after the fall of France in May of 1940.

And so there are many things to say about the royal family and about monarchy and about the British Empire. But that chapter is unsullied, I believe.

The other thing that I find so fascinating is, she spoke to our politics in this indirect way. But just because something`s indirect doesn`t mean it`s not real.

I want to read you one thing, if I may, from...

REID: Sure.

MEACHAM: This is the night she became queen, the coronation in 1953.

At the recommendation of Winston Churchill, who was in his second prime ministership, during the McCarthy era in the United States, 1953 -- this is a year before, year-and-a-half before McCarthy is censured.

This is what she said on the night she became queen: "Parliamentary institutions, with their free speech and respect for the rights of minorities and the inspiration of a broad tolerance in thought and expression, all this, we conceive to be a precious part of our way of life and outlook."

It was an affirmation of an imperfectly realized, but persistently argued and pursued Anglo-American tradition of human liberty. And lord knows, in the 21st century, when so many illiberal forces are on the march, we can heed those words with profit.

REID: Yes, amen. Absolutely.

Jon Meacham, always a pleasure. Thank you, sir. I really appreciate it.

We`re back after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:37:30]

REID: Not only did the world change during Queen Elizabeth`s 70-year reign, but the monarchy itself has evolved significantly.

Here`s NBC`s Keir Simmons.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KEIR SIMMONS, NBC SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): For the first time, the queen opened the royal family to the public eye. She encouraged her children to live lives beyond the palace walls.

In some ways, the royal family appeared just like the rest of us, vulnerable. The tragedy of Princess Diana was an especially dark moment for the royal family. There was growing anger in Britain that the monarchy was out of touch, detached and aloof.

The queen quickly returned to London from her vacation home to pay tribute to Diana and face a challenge to modernize the monarchy.

QUEEN ELIZABETH: I, for one believe there are lessons to be drawn from her life and from the extraordinary and moving reaction to her death.

SIMMONS: Queen Elizabeth set out to change the face of monarchy. It would be more open, compassionate, in touch with a changing British public.

QUEEN ELIZABETH: Institutions which, in turn, must continue to evolve, if they are to provide effective beacons of trust and unity.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

REID: NBC`s Keir Simmons, thank you.

And up next: Trump`s buddy Steve Bannon turns himself over to authorities in New York. He is now under indictment on a litany of money laundering, fraud and conspiracy charges. Go figure.

We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:43:32]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEVE BANNON, FORMER WHITE HOUSE CHIEF STRATEGIST: This is an irony. On the very day the mayor of the city has a delegation down on the border, they`re persecuting people here. They`re trying to stop...

(CROSSTALK)

PROTESTER: Stop hurting America, you two-bit con man, greasy grifter. Stop hurting America!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

REID: You got to love New York City.

Steve Bannon, once Donald Trump`s chief White House strategist, appeared in handcuffs today and in a New York City courtroom, where he pleaded not guilty to charges of defrauding thousands of Trump devotees as part of a fund-raising scam that claimed to be a private effort to build Trump`s wall across the Southern border, which actually turned out to be a fund-raiser for lifestyle money for the fund-raisers.

Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg and the New York attorney general, Letitia James, announced the indictment earlier today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LETITIA JAMES, NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL: He and Build -- and We Build the Wall, they`re being charged for defrauding these donors out of more than $15 million and for laundering the proceeds to further advance and to conceal the fraud.

ALVIN BRAGG, MANHATTAN DISTRICT ATTORNEY: The simple truth is that it is a crime to profit off the backs of donors by making false pretenses.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

REID: In all, Bannon was indicted on six counts tied to money laundering, fraud and conspiracy.

Now, you may remember that fraud -- that Trump pardoned the alt-right former Breitbart editor on similar federal charges just hours before leaving the White House. But that won`t help him this time. Pardons do not cover state charges.

In a statement to NBC News, Bannon said -- quote -- "This is nothing more than a partisan political victim -- weaponization of the criminal justice system," despite the fact that the same exact prosecutor, Alvin Bragg, declined to prosecute Trump.

[19:45:02]

This comes just seven weeks after Bannon was convicted on two federal counts of contempt of Congress.

Joining me now, Hugo Lowell, congressional reporter for "The Guardian," and Charles Coleman, civil rights attorney and MSNBC legal analyst.

Let`s -- well, actually, let`s get to these charges first, Charles.

Just explain very quickly, for those who are concerned that there`s double jeopardy involved, why him being charged with the same kind of fraud the second time is not that.

CHARLES COLEMAN JR., MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: First of all, Joy, the double jeopardy rule would not apply here, because he was not convicted, he was not pardoned, in fact, he wasn`t fully prosecuted on the federal level for these charges.

So there`s no single jeopardy, initially, that exists. Secondly, with respect to -- there was a loophole in New York state law, which was recently closed by the State Assembly, which would have ended any question around this with respect to double jeopardy and Steve Bannon being charged here.

But, again, because he was not charged and was not convicted on a federal level, the legal question around double jeopardy is actually far simpler than some people have made it out to be.

REID: Yes, and you -- I mean, he`s -- this is an interesting sort of development, in that what he`s charged with is not hurting the republic or fomenting an insurrection. It`s hurting Trump donors. I wonder, inside of Trump world, is he being supported or not, because it was his -- Trump`s own people that he harmed?

COLEMAN: Well, that`s an interesting question, because, if you think about it, like you said, these are all Trump supporters in New York City who actually sent him money.

And so the question becomes, at a certain point, does it become better or worse for business for you to be sort of persecuted by a politicized media and politicized justice system that has been weaponized against all things Trump? I think that that narrative holds to some degree.

But when you start talking about defrauding actual Trump supporters, I`m not sure it goes so well. And so his sort of martyrdom that he`s been leaning into this entire time may not play well with respect to this audience, because now you have defaulted your own people, so to speak. You have taken money and grifted from your own supporters.

REID: And your -- same question to you, Hugo.

HUGO LOWELL, "THE GUARDIAN": Look, I think Trump world has been very silent on this, which is always telling.

If they want to defend someone, they are full-throated with that defense. I think, in this case, kind of Bannon has been left to his kind of own devices. He`s left with his own attorney here. And I think that`s indicative of the fact that Trump world isn`t that impressed with what happened, the fact that Bannon decided to use money that was destined to go towards the border wall and then basically enriched himself and then his associates.

And I think, even by the standards of Trump world, that was maybe a grift too far.

REID: Yes, let`s go on to this other big development that happened today.

And that is, of course, that the Justice Department has now appealed this decision by -- speaking of Trump world, Trump`s -- the judge who seemed to be very much on Trump`s side.

So, "The intelligence community`s review" -- this is the appeal: "The Intelligence committees review and assessment cannot be regularly -- cannot be readily segregated from the Department of Justice and FBI activities in connection with the ongoing criminal investigation. And uncertainty regarding the bounds of the court order and its implications for the activities of the FBI has caused the intelligence community, in consultation with the DOJ, to pause temporarily this critically important work. Moreover, the government and the public are irreparably injured when a criminal investigation of matters involving risks to national security is enjoined."

So, the Department of Justice is trying to basically get this lawyer -- this judge to enjoin her own order and to pause it.

Charles, I will start with you. I mean, it doesn`t seem like there is a lot of chance of doing that, but what do you make of the appeal?

COLEMAN: Well, Joy, when you are a private litigate, you are only concerned about the results.

But, however, when you are litigating in the interests of the public, you can be concerned about the results and the rationale. And I think that, in this case, it`s not just a result of the order that the DOJ was alarmed by. It was the rationale that they could not allow it to be -- to go forward and not challenge with respect to an appeal.

And that rationale is laid out very clearly, I think, in a well-written appeal on behalf of the DOJ. They basically said, look, you have bifurcated this case into somehow separating the criminal aspect to -- from the investigative aspect, without any regard for the national security implications. You can`t do that. Like, that is a big issue.

And I think that they laid it out, not to mention that you have extended a level of discretion around executive privilege, which, number one, should not exist, and, number two, there`s no precedent for.

And so I think the DOJ understood that they could probably live with the results in the large scheme of themes regarding a special master, inasmuch as the FBI has already gone through the documents. They know what`s there. But it was the rationale that they had to challenge, because if this were to remain on the books as standing law, as precedent for future endeavors, you never know where this could lead.

[19:50:00]

And so I think it`s that -- that was what pushed it over the edge. And I understand why they made the appeal. And I honestly do think that they may have a shot, in some respects, of getting that injunction.

REID: And, Hugo, what`s the thinking either at the DOJ side or in the Trump world side?

Because there are a few things that the Trump side didn`t do. They never claimed executive privilege. Now, the question is, are they now going to do that? Are they now going to try to assert something that they can`t have, because these aren`t their documents, and sort of start making the claims that it did feel like Judge Cannon was trying to prompt them to make?

What is the thinking now on how they go forward? And do they start making some of the claims she seemed to be teeing up for them?

LOWELL: Yes.

No, it`s a really good point you`re making about how the judge in this case effectively made the arguments on behalf of Trump`s lawyers. If you look at the original filings from Trump`s legal team, they`re very muddled. You have kind of invocations of attorney-client privilege and then, in a separate filing, they were just talking about privilege generally, like they were just going to assert privilege of these documents, and that would be it.

In terms of kind of executive privilege, I think you have to wait and see what they`re going to do. I don`t think Trump legal knows what they want to do yet. And I think a lot of this is because they, as well as us, are looking at that motion to stay from the Justice Department tonight and kind of realizing that Judge Cannon has a decision to make here, right?

The fact that she prevented the Justice Department from reviewing the seized materials meant the FBI could not review the seized materials in terms of a broad intelligence community risk assessment. The FBI is both part of the intelligence community and it`s also part of the Justice Department.

And by telling the Justice Department, you can`t look at any of these material, the intelligence community went, oh, are we allowed to look at these documents as well, and screwed the entire process up.

And so I think Trump legal is kind of nervously looking at how the DOJ proceeds next, how Judge Cannon proceeds next.

REID: Right.

And I think that`s the thing that is so inscrutable and difficult to get through, Charles, is that she`s essentially enjoined a national security investigation, effectively, because they have all already looked at this material. They can`t segregate their minds from what they have already seen. And yet they have got to try to find out what damage has been done to our national security somehow without going back and looking at the documents?

Like, it literally doesn`t make any sense even to a layperson like myself.

COLEMAN: No, you`re right.

And I think that that`s exactly why Merrick Garland and the DOJ went forward with respect to this appeal. I think it was just one of those things where you can`t make sense out of the rationale. And, again, from a precedent place, something like this can`t remain on the books without being challenged, because at least, in an appeal, one way or the other, the court will have to explain itself in a way that`s going to give guidance for future cases that may come in this vein.

They`re going to have to say, either this reasoning was wrong for the following reasons, or we believe that this was OK and appropriate for the following reasons, which then gives future prosecutors a road map in terms of how to approach it.

But to leave it where it was would just be a disaster, because, as you said, for so many different reasons, the way that this judge parsed out that order, you can`t make heads or tails of it in so many different regards around, how are you supposed to continue the investigation or halt the investigation, but, at the same time, continue to look through the national security documents and deal with those concerns with material that`s so sensitive?

And your reasoning behind how you determine one vs. the other is not rooted in anything that someone who`s been practicing law for almost 20 years can follow.

REID: Or even, at least according to Neal Katyal, that somebody who`s like a first year law student could follow.

(LAUGHTER)

REID: Because, apparently, he said even they would have been able to figure it out, that none of that made any sense.

Hugo Lowell, Charles Coleman, thank you both very much.

OK, and, meanwhile, the world did lose another icon today, with the passing of pioneering journalist Bernard Shaw. A look back at his remarkable career next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:58:18]

REID: America has lost a pioneering black journalist, Bernard Shaw, who was CNN`s chief anchor for two decades and was with the network when it launched in 1980.

He was a man who ushered America calmly through some of this country`s most seminal moments, from the assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BERNARD SHAW, NEWS ANCHOR: We can report that shots were fired as President Reagan left the Washington Hilton Hotel.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

REID: To the launch of operation Desert Storm live from Baghdad.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SHAW: It was like the fireworks finale on the Fourth of July at the base of the Washington Monument.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

REID: But, for many of us, it was his first question during the 1988 presidential debate between George Herbert Walker Bush and Michael Dukakis, which might have changed the course of history.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SHAW: Governor, if Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?

FMR. GOV. MICHAEL DUKAKIS (D-MA): No, I don`t, Bernard.

And I think you know that I have opposed the death penalty during all of my life. I don`t see any evidence that it`s a deterrent. And I think there are better and more effective ways to deal with violent crime.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

REID: Dukakis never recovered.

Shaw retired in 2001.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JUDY WOODRUFF, NEWS ANCHOR: This is Bernie`s last show at the anchor desk.

I`m going to hold on.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

REID: And Judy Woodruff was right. It will be hard to let him go.

Bernard Shaw died Wednesday of non-COVID-related pneumonia. He was 82 years old and a phenomenal journalist who inspired so many of us who are in this business in many ways, in large part thanks to his example.

And that is tonight`s REIDOUT.

"ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES" starts now.