Summary
New reporting from The New York Times is raising questions about whether Trump may be trying to influence witness testimony in the January 6th investigation. And the Supreme Court rules that the Biden administration can end "Remain In Mexico" policy.
Transcript
LAWRENCE O`DONNELL, MSNBC HOST: That sisterhood was back in Washington again today at the Supreme Court as Judge Jackson officially became Justice Jackson. And they shared some photos with us including one of Justice Jackson`s official picture, which already hangs on the wall inside the Supreme Court.
To see our full interview with the Katanji Brown Jackson and the roommate sisterhood, the Harvard Roommate Sisterhood go to the "LAST WORD" on Twitter. Find a link to the video there. That is tonight`s "LAST WORD". THE 11TH HOUR with Stephanie Ruhle starts now.
[23:00:38]
ALICIA MENENDEZ, MSNBC ANCHOR: Tonight, disturbing new questions about possible witness pressure in the January 6 investigation. Plus, the Supreme Court closes out its term with more key decisions makes history Justice Jackson`s swearing in and promises a new legal debate overstates influence over elections.
And nearly one week since the reversal of Roe, the President endorses an end to the filibuster to codify abortion rights as legal challenges mount across the country at THE 11TH HOUR gets underway on this Thursday night.
Good evening. I`m Alicia Menendez in for Stephanie Ruhle.
There are new developments tonight and the ongoing investigation for January 6. The New York Times reports Donald Trump`s political organization and allies have paid for or promised to cover legal fees, more than a dozen witnesses raising questions about whether the former president may be trying to influence their testimony.
The Times points out there is nothing illegal about a third party covering legal fees for a witness that says the issue came under increased scrutiny following the testimony of former Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson.
She recently fired a lawyer recommended to her by one of Trump`s former aides, who was paid for by his political action committee. Hutchinson hired her new lawyer before her last interview with the committee. At the end of today`s hearing, committee Vice Chair Liz Cheney suggested the possibility of witness tampering.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. LIZ CHENEY (R-WY): This is a call received by one of our witnesses. Quote, a person let me know you have your deposition tomorrow. He wants me to let you know he`s thinking about you. He knows you`re loyal. And you`re going to do the right thing when you go in for your deposition. I think most Americans know that attempting to influence witnesses to testify. Untruthfully presents very serious concerns.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MENENDEZ: And today she told ABC News, federal prosecutors may be paying close attention.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHENEY: The way that I would put it is that it gives us a real insight into how people around the former president are operating into the extent to which they believe that they can affect the testimony of witnesses before the committee. And it`s something we take very seriously. And it`s something that people should be aware of. It`s a very serious issue. And I would imagine the Department of Justice would be very interested in and we`ll take that very seriously as well.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MENENDEZ: The January 6 committee`s hearings have laid out in stunning detail, the brazen steps taken to keep Joe Biden out of the White House and stop the peaceful transfer of power.
And this morning, the Supreme Court said it has agreed to hear case based on an argument Trump allies tried to use to do just that. The case will decide whether legislatures and not state courts have final authority to decide how elections for federal candidates are conducted.
The courts next term begins in October, so the court`s decision could have huge implications for the 2024 election before they dropped that announcement. The justices closed out this term with another controversial ruling. The decision essentially guts the EPA`s ability to curb greenhouse gas emissions that experts warn it is a significant blow to the battle against climate change.
The White House call today`s decision devastating. The courts conservatives are now making it plain. They are in the majority. Their rulings have expanded gun owner`s rights, strengthen the role of religion in public life and overturned Roe vs. Wade moving federal protection for abortion rates.
Today is President Biden wrapped up a NATO summit in Spain. He spoke out in support of a limited change to the filibuster.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE BIDEN, U.S. PRESIDENT: The one thing that has been destabilizing is the outrageous behavior the Supreme Court of the United States and overruling not only Roe v. Wade, but essentially challenging the right to privacy. We have to codify Roe v Wade in the law and the way to do that is to make sure the Congress votes to do that and if the filibuster gets in the way it`s like voting rights it should be we provide an exception.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[23:05:06]
MENENDEZ: In Democratic governors to discuss ways to protect abortion access. The President did have two reasons to celebrate today. The Supreme Court did side with his administration`s effort and a controversial Trump era immigration program. We`re going to have details on that just ahead by the nominee, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson was sworn in as Associate Justice today.
She is now the first African American woman to sit on the court, have more on that historic moment later in the hour.
And with that, let`s get smarter with the help of our leadoff panel. Former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance, who spent 25 years as a federal prosecutor. She is a professor at the University of Alabama School of Law and co-host of the podcast hashtag Sisters in Law. Neal Katyal, Department of Justice veteran, former acting Solicitor General during the Obama administration was argued dozens of cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, and Politico`s White House correspondent Eugene Daniels.
Neal, here is some of what committee members Zoe Lofgren said on this network about money being used to pay witnesses Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ZOE LOFGREN (D-CA): We know that a large amounts of money have been spent out of the fun that was a masked (ph) by the former president and is being used to pay for lawyers to various witnesses. The potential for coercion in that case is pretty obvious.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MENENDEZ: The potential for coercion, what does the committee, Neal, need to prove coercion? And could they already have that?
NEAL KATYAL, FMR. SOLICITOR GENERAL: I`ll be very quick because I think Joyce will be better on this than me. But the one thing I`d say is, it`s not illegal to pay money, pay someone`s legal expenses. Corporations do it all the time. But so too, does the mob. And the question is, is this kind of money being used the way the mob uses it, in order to induce a certain story and a certain cooperation between Trump and these witnesses? Or is it being done for legitimate reasons?
And you know, if this were someone who were a goody two shoes, it`d be one thing, it`s Donald Trump who we all know colors outside any sort of boundaries of the law, and so it does look really suspicious. I`m glad to see Liz Cheney says she`s looking at it and that she expects the Justice Department would be looking at it too.
MENENDEZ: Joyce, I love whenever an excellent guest suggests that another guest would be even better at answering a question than they would your thoughts.
JOYCE VANCE, FMR. U.S. ATTORNEY: Well, Neal was who I always had to take my cases to for approval at DOJ. So let`s see if he approves here. But I think the right line to draw is this. The funding issue is interesting. It has a lot to do with the ethical obligations that lawyers have to their clients. But when we`re talking about witness intimidation, any effort, it doesn`t have to be successful, it can be an attempt to hinder to delay to prevent a witness from testifying truthfully, that falls within this statute that reaches very broadly, and gives prosecutors the ability to indict folks who engage in witness tampering.
And the reason that this law is so important, I think is pretty self- evident. It`s because our entire criminal justice system is based on prosecutors ability to get to the truth to find out what the truth is to prosecute wrongdoers, and if you have someone who`s engaged in wrongdoing, but who`s keeping evidence of it out of the hands of prosecutors, you`ve got to treat that very significantly, very strenuously.
You know, we like to always say, I think in the wake of Watergate, that it`s the cover up, right, it`s always the cover up that gets people in trouble. Witness tampering is the cover up and so if that evidence comes to light, I`d look for DOJ to go after it pretty hard.
MENENDEZ: Let me ask you another question about this, Joyce, because earlier today we heard from another former White House aide who is friends with Cassidy Hutchinson. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: Trump world was assigning lawyers to a lot of these staffers who themselves, you know, don`t have --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You have assigning lawyer?
GRIFFIN: Well, I should say covering the costs of lawyers for people who don`t have big legal defense funds to themselves --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Paying Cassidy Hutchinson`s lawyer?
GRIFFIN: Is my understanding you`d have to confirm that but she had someone Passantino who -- Stefan Passantino, who had been in the White House Counsel`s Office is still aligned with Trump world.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MENENDEZ: OK, here`s what`s interesting to me. The former aide says Hutchinson change lawyers, when she decided she had more to tell the committee. Could the argument, Joyce, be made that the Trump lawyer was trying to contain Hutchinson`s testimony.
VANCE: It depends on what the facts are here. It`s not uncommon to see a third person paying for someone`s criminal defense, you know, but we see it all the time. Neal points out mob cases also in drug trafficking cases, in the cartel like drug trafficking cases, it`s not unusual to see that sort of situation come up.
[23:10:03]
And it is technically acceptable so long as the lawyer is representing his client, and not the person who`s paying him. And that`s where we have this, I don`t think it`s a bright line distinction here, but it`s possible that you could have a lawyer who could cross over that line so far that he wouldn`t just be failing to vigorously represent his client to zealously represent his client. He might also find himself caught up in some form of a conspiracy to intimidate the witness.
MENENDEZ: Eugene --
VANCE: You don`t need to know that until we know more about the facts.
MENENDEZ: Apologize there, Joyce. Eugene, I don`t need to tell you, President Biden has so far been silent on the January 6 committee`s activities. But NBC reports he intends to give a speech once the investigation is over, he will quote, emphasize what Biden believes is at stake should former President Donald Trump or his allies return to power in Washington draw on revelations from the committee`s investigation to make a vivid case against voting for Republican candidates in November.
Is this senior gene as a as a shift in strategy in terms of how the current president responds to all of this?
EUGENE DANIELS, POLITICO WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: I think from the very beginning, what they wanted to do was that the committee kind of do its work, right. They will -- they didn`t want to we talk we reported this at POLITICO, they didn`t want President Biden to be out front, talking about what was happening every single day, you weren`t going to see tweets, from his account. You weren`t going to see him on TikTok talking about it, that wasn`t going to be their strategy. And you weren`t going to going to see aides on background kind of giving a sense of how the White House is viewing that.
Because the really -- one of the reasons that we`re in this position having this committee is because of how Donald Trump used and talked about law, and most importantly, his justice department. And so there`s an investigation happening right now behind the scenes with Biden`s Justice Department. And he doesn`t want to be in any way seen as putting his thumb on the scale.
So this wouldn`t be seen as a bit of a change in strategy. It is -- he`s going to be careful here though. And I think that people shouldn`t expect him to go out. And, you know, for every single big moment that we`ve seen in this in these committee hearings, go through every single one of those.
He has constantly talked about what happened on January 6, as a dark day for democracy and talked about how he sees Donald Trump and his allies dangerous for democracy. That sounds kind of in line with what we`re going to see if we see him after the January 6 committee.
You aren`t going to see him, you know, tell Merrick Garland in front of the American people to go get them and arrest them, because he doesn`t want to be seen, as -- and it doesn`t want to tell Merrick Garland of the Department of Justice, what to do, no matter how much pressure the left has been putting on Merrick Garland, or has been putting on Joe Biden to put on Merrick Garland.
So folks who are getting, I think, kind of excited about seeing Donald Trump really, or excuse me, see Joe Biden really take Donald Trump to task because of January 6, in the in the revelations, on the aspects where there`s possible culpability, criminal culpability for Donald Trump, and some of his allies. I think that this White House is going to continue to steer clear from there.
MENENDEZ: Neal, speaking of dangers to democracy, this Court has decided to take up this issue of state legislatures and federal elections. They`ve lost him in a Cook Political Report tweeted, hard to overstate what a radical step this would be, given that many swing state legislatures are gerrymandered in ways that self-perpetuate GOP control would decimate checks and balances. I wonder Neal what you make of the court`s decision to take this case?
KATYAL: Well, this case is the North Carolina redistricting case. It`s my case, actually, so I`m, you know, just going to be pretty silent on this, except to say that I am very worried about the U.S. Supreme Court at this point.
I mean, it`s my lifeblood. I`ve argued there 45 times. I love the court or revere the court. But this particular composition of the court is the most conservative extreme court in our lifetimes. It`s one of the three most conservative courts ever, only 1857 and 1935 come close. And you know, what happened after both of those years.
So, I`m optimistic about this particular case, because I think the history is so much on our side. But I do think as we think about like, what happened today with the greenhouse gas emissions case, what happened last week with abortion and with guns, what`s happened, you know, for months about the religion cases.
You know, this is a court that is out of step with the mainstream of American society right now and entrenching a certain view of the law and politics into our United States reports and it is a worrisome trend.
MENENDEZ: And Joyce, for years, Republicans have accused Democrats of trying to appoint activist judges, you and our critics arguing that that is what they are witnessing from these six conservative justices, your thoughts.
[23:15:05]
VANCE: If what we`ve seen this term is not judicial activism, I don`t know what it is. This is a court that has used textualism in so many cases, claiming that they have to find the Founding Fathers intent, and using that to do absolutely insane things like permit people to have AR-15s in public in this country, in the midst of a wave of gun violence. But by the same token, when textualism does not serve this court, they don`t feel constrained by principle.
And so we see the decision that we thought today in the EPA case, where they used something called the major questions doctrine very rarely used to say that Congress hadn`t given the EPA sufficient authority hadn`t been explicit enough in that grant of authority to permit the EPA to take important steps to slow the advance of climate change.
And it`s amazing when you think that we`ve seen that same doctrine very rarely used in our nation`s history, used a couple of other times by this court, in one case, to end the nationwide ban on evictions during the pandemic, and in another to keep Joe Biden from requiring vaccination at large companies.
So this is a court that`s been very facile about how it`s used doctrine. It`s not a good look, it`s very disheartening to people like Neal and like me, who love the court and love the law, because we understand that at the core of the Court`s authority, is its integrity, it doesn`t have an army to go out and enforce its orders.
Its orders and the rule of law work in this country because we have confidence in them. The Chief Justice will have his work cut out over the summer recess to try to return the court to some sort of moral center.
MENENDEZ: Right and why -- you know, please jump in, Neal.
KATYAL: I was going to jump in, because I think Joyce is absolutely right. The way the Supreme Court acted today, basically ending a lot of greenhouse gas regulation was to say this major questions doctrine applied. The idea they said was that Congress had to specifically give the EPA authority to regulate in this area, and I guess calling it the Environmental Protection Agency left some ambiguity as to what the agency was designed to protect.
And Justice Kagan, I thought in her dissent today was absolutely spot on spot on which he said, Well, I guess I`ve been a little hasty and concluding that we`re all textual is now because when it came to the text and authorization of the Environmental Protection Agency, the conservatives on the court just blew past it.
That`s why I think you know, what`s so worrisome here is that it looks like an abandonment of principle for results oriented jurisprudence. And I think Joyce is right to call this as activist a court as we`ve ever seen in Arlington`s,
MENENDEZ: Eugene Daniels, Joyce Vance, Neal Katyal, thank you all so much for getting us started.
Coming up, a rare win for the Biden administration from the Supreme Court. We`re going to ask Senator Alex Padilla if the ruling on remain in Mexico is truly a victory.
And later, one week after the historic rollback of Roe, an update or where women`s health care stands as of tonight, THE 11TH HOUR just getting underway on a Thursday night.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:22:54]
MENENDEZ: It does not happen often these days but the Biden administration today welcome to a small victory from the Supreme Court. In a five-four decision, the justices ruled the administration may end the former president`s so called "remain in Mexico policy."
The policy formerly known as the Migrant Protection Protocols, MPP, requires asylum seekers to wait in Mexico while their claims are decided. As the New York Times points out after the policy went into effect in 2019, tens of thousands of people waited in unsanitary tent encampments for immigration hearings. There have been widespread reports of sexual assault, kidnapping and torture.
Tonight the Department of Homeland Security issued a statement saying we`ll terminate the program as soon as legally permissible. We`re pleased to welcome the junior senator from California, Alex Padilla.
Senator, an immigration attorney told the Texas Tribune the Biden administration can immediately stop enforcing the program. But, the Supreme Court`s ruling leaves the door open for Texas and other states to continue pressing to force the administration to continue the program.
Senator, do you believe the administration is prepared to stop enrolling new migrants and begin the wind down of those who do still remain stuck in Mexico?
SEN. ALEX PADILLA (D-CA): I do believe so. And I think they have said as much. You referenced the department`s statement today that they would end the program as soon as legally feasible, which should be much sooner rather than later.
Alicia, it`s good to be back with you and I think to be described, today`s ruling is right on. There`s that saying hope for the best prepare for the worst we were prepared for the worst. This may be a small win, but it`s a win nonetheless with so much more work to do. Let`s terminate the remain in Mexico program. Title 42 should be next. There`s some into the Trump era immigration policy that needs to be undone.
So we can go about the business, both in the executive branch and the Biden administration and in Congress, to modernize our immigration laws because it`s our broken immigration system that`s leading to the tragedies that we see at the border, that we saw in San Antonio, and so many others.
[23:25:10]
MENENDEZ: Let`s talk about what we saw in San Antonio senator, more than 50 migrants found dead in a sweltering tractor trailer. Today, four migrants were killed in Texas as authorities chase alleged human smugglers.
The Washington Post Editorial Board writes, quote, the absence of any workable legal system that would admit migrants systematically in numbers that would meet the U.S. labor markets demand is the original sin of the chaos at the border. That is Congress`s bipartisan failure, a symptom of systemic paralysis for many years.
Senator, what is being done right now to prevent these deaths and fix this system?
PADILLA: Look, Alicia, as you know, immigration reform has been one of my top priorities since I came into the Senate a year and a half ago. I can`t tell you how many hours have put into bipartisan negotiations last year, a lot of one on one conversations with my Republican colleagues. The type of work with the parliamentarian and the Senate moving the reconciliation process that wasn`t successful. We`ve been pushing the White House to do more.
I guess good news is talks have reopened between Democrats and Republicans. But whether it`s the 10th anniversary of DACA, and the ongoing limbo, that dreamers live in this tragedy in San Antonio, and more, these are just reminders of how broken the immigration system is. And the urgent need for us to finally act.
The reason you had these tragedies is because the lawful migration pathways just aren`t there. It`s not working. And so for all my Republican colleagues who, you know, beat their chest and scream from the mountaintops about, quote unquote, illegal immigration or irregular migration.
Well, the way to fix it is to fix the legal migration pathways. And don`t just take our word for it. We`re talking about the economy each and every day, every business leader, every economist is telling us that the labor shortage in America is leading to higher prices. We need immigrant labor into jobs that Americans just won`t do.
MENENDEZ: Senator, pivoting back to the court, as we said, today was a rare victory for the White House when it comes to the Supreme Court. And there are many Democrats demanding significant reform to the court. Where do you stand on that?
PADILLA: Look, it`s just look at what the Supreme Court has done this session and in recent years. The Supreme Court has decimated voting rights, if you look back to 2013, but this session alone, to undo the protections of Roe v Wade, which stood for nearly 50 years, to make it harder for state and local governments to improve gun safety in their communities.
And, you know, just today, you know, I represent California, we`re on the frontlines of the climate crisis for this extreme conservative Supreme Court to tie the hands of agencies that are charged with protecting our environment, I think sets a bad tone and message for a lot of other policy areas.
So reform is absolutely needed the Supreme Court toss reminder that the Congress needs to do its job, when Supreme Court starts undoing established policy, then we need to act to embed those rights starting with Roe v. Wade, into federal law, and it should be a wake up call and alarm going off when justices who would come in through for confirmation said one thing. But once you`re on the bench, or saying and doing another, the America deserves better.
MENENDEZ: Let me ask you, Senator, because I`ve heard you talk about more accountability, ethics from Supreme Court justices. What exactly can Congress do about that? How can they achieve that?
PADILLA: Yes, well again, those conversations are happening in real time and hope that in the weeks ahead, there may be measures coming through as a member of the Judiciary Committee, trust me. People are pretty livid at not just the rulings and the policy outcomes, but the rationale that these extremists Supreme Court Justice used to justify their decisions.
You know, in the prior panel, you had a conversation about some of the case that came out today. If it applied to other policy areas it`s not just environmental protection, that is jeopardized and undermined. It`s a whole lot of other issues. The rationale the Supreme Court use to undo Roe v. Wade, in the near term, if you listen to Clarence Thomas`s opinion, his calling and other litigation to undo access to contraception, you know, undo marriage equality and so much more.
And so, yes, we need to buttress the confirmation process, pass ethics reforms because there`s conflicts of interests at the Supreme Court today. And again, America deserves better.
Senator Alex Padilla, thank you so much for being with us.
[23:30:00]
Coming up, there are signs the revelations in the January 6 investigation are beginning to leave a mark. Back check some of the political fallout when THE 11TH HOUR continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MENENDEZ: Well, the January 6 hearings on Earth more new developments. CNBC reports support from some of the GOP biggest donors for a 2024 run by Donald Trump is dwindling.
[23:35:03]
An attorney and longtime GOP fundraiser said quote, donors are very concerned that Trump is the one Republican who can lose in 2024.
Joining us for more, Juanita Tolliver, a veteran political strategist to progressive candidates and causes David Jolly, a former Republican and a former member of the U.S. House of Representatives. He`s now chairman of the Serve America Movement. He is also an MSNBC political contributor.
Right, David, how bad is that for Donald Trump?
DAVID JOLLY, SERVE AMERICA MOVEMENT CHAIRMAN: Look, the reality is in Republican primary politics, the big donors don`t decide those elections, the voters do. And we know in Donald Trump and frankly most Republican politicians these days, there is plenty of money to go around to get Donald Trump the nomination again.
So, is it helpful the January 6 hearings? No, I think what we didn`t know at the beginning that we know now is that the J6 committee really isolated Donald Trump as the singular actor in this grievance that was cast upon American culture and American history. But does it mean that he can`t win the nomination again? No, it absolutely does.
MENENDEZ: Juanita, your thoughts?
JUANITA TOLLIVER, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: I couldn`t agree with David more on this point of that it focuses on the voters who continue to be under Trump`s sway, rejecting truth, rejecting logic rejecting all of that, even through these moments that we`re having these hearings.
Well, we know Republicans have told poll after poll that they are not paying attention to.
I also think about the fact that even though these GOP donors and leaders are looking at DeSantis as a less complicated option, they too have been with Trump and what we can describe as a prelude of other scandals before this attempted coup, think about the sexual assault allegations, think about the lies think about the bribes to Zelenskyy, think about the two impeachment trials. Right. They still been with Trump, but now things change this week.
I`m not buying and I don`t think I`m being cynical. I think he`s just being realistic about the fact that Republican voters are still electing Trump replicas across the country as we speak. And so that is some weight that he`ll be able to carry forward, especially if he`s able to deliver on the big bet that Republicans and McCarthy took on him and tried to get Republicans in the House in the Senate.
MENENDEZ: Right, understanding the difference between Trump and Trumpism. I mean, even still, David, as you have sort of this reporting that there are loyalists who are beginning to abandon Trump in favor of other candidates. The name that keeps coming up over and over again is Florida Governor Ron DeSantis.
Axios reports a new political group planning to gather contact info of over 1 million DeSantis supporters nationwide by the end of the year, give it to the DeSantis campaign free of charge. We sort of talk separately about sort of the mechanics of that the morality of that, but talk to me about what team DeSantis, DeSantis world is thinking what do they think needs to happen --
JOLLY: Sure.
MENENDEZ: -- between now and 2024 set him up.
JOLLY: Yes, Alicia, arguably, Ron DeSantis has the hottest hand in the country right now politically among Rs or Ds. Certainly if Donald Trump does not run, it`s almost a coordination for Ron DeSantis in the Republican primary. It`s DeSantis. And then everybody else in his wake.
Here`s what to watch for. Ron DeSantis is facing a reelection in November. So he can`t personally indicate that he`s going to seek the presidency in `24. But what you`re reporting on from Axios what is out there is a committee to recruit Ron DeSantis. And so coming off of the November reelection, should he be reelected? You will see the ready for Ron political committee begin to trial balloon that Ron DeSantis should run for president.
Notably, Ron DeSantis has distanced himself from Donald Trump and the dance has officially begun. Yesterday, Donald Trump said maybe DeSantis could be his running mate. Ron DeSantis in November desperately wants to win reelection by more than 3.4 percentage points. And the reason why is because that`s how much Donald Trump won Florida by.
Ron DeSantis in November wants to be able to say I`m the stronger candidate in `24. Hey, look at me, but he`s going to rely on his proxies to get that message out there.
MENENDEZ: Here`s the thing, Juanita. You have Liz Cheney repeatedly urging Republicans to break away from Trump on stage tonight at her Wyoming primary debate. She said she would never violate her oath of office and a voters want someone who will they need to vote for someone else on that stage. So I want to know both if you think any will follow her lead, and from where the line is for DeSantis on as I like to put it having his trump and eating it too.
TOLLIVER: Look, as far as loose Cheney goes, What I fear is that some of those voters in the audience will take her up on that offer and vote for somebody else because we know that she`s been saying this for a while now. She`s been saying it remember when McCarthy penalized her for saying it by removing her from Republican leadership but I appreciate that she`s standing firm on this and I appreciate that she`s working to get to the truth of January 6 is just that Republican primary voters might not appreciate it as much as me.
[23:40:09]
In terms of DeSantis, I think we need to remember that he modeled his entire career off of Trump. Think back to that 2018 campaign ad series where he`s playing with the blocks, building the wall, like it was all about how close to Trump can I get, but maintain that scandal free zone. And that`s what DeSantis has been doing.
And I think it`s something that is going to appeal to Republican voters who are sick of Trump. Because we remember that in that 2020 election cycle was all about getting rid of Trump to the point where you had Republican switching parties. AP reported that a million voters have now re registered with the Republican Party.
And so they`re probably looking for that substitute. They`re probably looking for that alternative and it could come in the form of DeSantis.
MENENDEZ: Juanita Tolliver, David Jolly, thank you both so much for staying up late with me.
Coming up, confusion around the country. Nearly a week after the Supreme Court overturned Roe, we`re going to have the latest on the state by state legal battle when THE 11TH HOUR continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:45:47]
MENENDEZ: Nearly one week since the reversal of Roe, there is confusion across much of the nation, some states have immediately moved to ban or restrict abortion. But judges are creating a wall of resistance against these laws in states like Florida, Kentucky, Utah and Texas bans or restrictions have been temporarily blocked. And for some anti-abortion groups abortion bans are only the beginning.
The Washington Post reports several national anti-abortion groups and their allies and Republican led state legislatures are advancing plans to stop people in states where abortion is banned from seeking the procedure elsewhere.
We welcome New York Magazine senior correspondent Irin Carmon. She is also the co-author of the book, "Notorious RBG: The Life and Times of Ruth Bader Ginsburg."
Irin, there`s so much confusion, that confusion is by design, how should people navigate all of this fast moving news?
IRIN CARMON, NEW YORK MAGAZINE SENIOR CORRESPONDENT: You know, Alicia, I can`t believe it hasn`t even been a week since Roe v. Wade was overturned. I also can`t believe I`m even still saying those words, even though I`ve been saying them for a week. It`s surreal.
And even though we had more advanced notice on this than we might normally have, because of the leak, it is absolutely the case that there`s complete confusion across the country. And that`s because despite the fact that the Supreme Court said, Hey, guys, we`re leaving it to the states, let everyone figure it out for themselves. We don`t live in 50 separate countries, people travel routinely between states and even within states, as you can see from these different injunctions from state courts, there is a question of OK, if the federal government open the door to the state to ban abortion. What about the state constitution? What about, you know, this -- how the state courts interpret the Constitution?
In Kansas, they`re bringing it up to a referendum whether the state constitution guarantees a right to privacy. I would say that the most chilling thing, which was -- I actually reported on this before the final opinion came out is what you alluded to in terms of states trying to prosecute abortion seekers, and anybody who helps them beyond their borders.
Now, Brett Kavanaugh and his concurrence, wrote that this shouldn`t happen, that there`s a right to travel. But all that matters is what actually happens when a court votes on this, what actually happens if a prosecutor tries to chase someone down for providing information. You`ve seen lawmakers in states across the country, not satisfied with making abortion illegal, or almost impossible to access within the borders of their state, but also trying to hunt down patients who are seeking abortion outside of their state.
And as a result, even in states that don`t have these kinds of restrictions. There`s a lot of fear. I saw a memo today from Planned Parenthood of Montana saying that if folks are coming from banned states, like South Dakota, not to give them medication, abortion, this is the multiple pill regimen, but to only schedule them for surgical abortions that can be completed on the day up because of fear of what`s going to happen to those individuals when they go home.
So I think you`re right that it`s by design, but the design is leading into a direction that is trying to trap pregnant people within the borders of their state and force them to remain pregnant, shutting off any options to go to states that are more open to them exercising their reproductive freedom. I think the fear here is the point.
MENENDEZ: That fear extends to you know, abortion funds, right. We`ve seen a number of abortion funds, saying we`re going to put a pause on our efforts until we can get clear legal guidance on the risk and jeopardy that we are putting ourselves and our employees into.
Can you give us a sense and I understand this is almost unknowable but timeline, when we talk about the state by state legal battles, how long does it take those to play out?
CARMON: Well, part of the problem is, you know, these injunctions that are being handed out at the state level -- handed down in the state level, they`re temporary, and there`s going to be litigation that follows and we`re talking about even in the case of Texas where I know the abortion funds have said that they have to pause.
[23:50:00]
You`re talking about a bunch of different laws that are in place, there the pre Roe abortion bans that might still be on the books. There`s the trigger laws so called trigger laws that have been passed already.
I reported on litigation that the author of SBA, the six-week ban in Texas brought against abortion funds for helping people during an injunction of the six-week ban there. So they already had kind of debut this playbook of harassing and going after in court abortion funds for just doing their job. And the abortion funds countersued and said we have a First Amendment right.
Donating money has been found to be an exercise of the First Amendment by the Supreme Court. And there`s a long jurisprudence about it, giving people information about where to go should be protected by the First Amendment.
But you know, I just saw in South Carolina, a bill was introduced also that not to have information on a website about where to access abortion. This should be open shut, First Amendment constitutional cases. But you can completely understand how cash strapped grassroots funds that don`t want to put their volunteers, their employees or patients at risk are holding off to try to understand.
Some of this really couldn`t have been anticipated before because they`re waiting for signals from states attorney general and district attorneys about how they`re going to interpret these laws and which laws they`re going to interpret.
But I certainly think it`s, you know, when I -- when we did our how to get an abortion cover story at New York Magazine, I wrote the introduction. And I said, as of now, the First Amendment protects sharing information on an abortion. And I put it as of now on purpose because it really only matters what a court will sign off on. It should be open shut that giving somebody safe legal information about here`s where a clinic is open, should be protected by the Constitution.
But we are in very new territory here. And I think that they`re showing that this is not enough for them to leave it to the states if they can`t get a nationwide ban under the current Congress. They`re certainly going to try to keep their residents from leaving for an abortion procedure.
MENENDEZ: As of now rarely have those words carried so much meaning. Irin Carmon as always, thank you. Coming up, a look at the history making day for the Supreme Court that has taken 232 years, when THE 11TH HOUR continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:57:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KETANJI BROWN JACKSON, U.S. SUPREME COURT ASSOCIATE JUSTICE: It has taken 232 years and 115 prior appointments for a black woman to be selected to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States. But we`ve made it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MENENDEZ: The last thing before we go tonight, a supreme moment. As we mentioned, Ketanji Brown Jackson was sworn in as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court today becoming the first black woman to serve on the court. Despite her extensive experience, this day was never guaranteed for Jackson.
As the New York Times reminds us, Justice Jackson encountered deep resistance among Republicans on Capitol Hill to her nomination. In her confirmation hearings devolved into a bitterly partisan debate where Republicans on the Senate Judiciary panel attacked her as a liberal partisan with a questionable record.
But in the end with Vice President Harris presiding Senate voted 53 to 47 to confirm her nomination was an emotional moment she celebrated with President Biden, who made it his campaign promise to nominate a black woman to the Supreme Court.
Which brings us to today when 83-year-old Justice Stephen Breyer officially retired, just serving 20 years on the court. He had this to say of his replacement quote, I am glad today for Ketanji, her hard work, integrity and intelligence have earned her a place on this court. I`m glad for my fellow justices. They get a colleague who is empathetic, thoughtful and collegial. I am glad for America. Ketanji will interpret the law wisely and fairly, helping that law to work better for the American people whom it serves. Congratulations Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Let`s take a moment to watch some of today`s historic swearing in ceremony.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS, U.S. SUPREME COURT: Welcome to the Supreme Court. We`re here today to administer the oath of office to Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to become an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. I, Ketanji Brown Jackson do solemnly swear --
JACKSON: I could tangy brown Jackson do solemnly swear --
ROBERTS: -- that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
JACKSON: -- that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
STEPHEN BREYER, FORMER ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: --and that I will faithfully and impartially--
JACKSON: --and that I will faithfully and impartially--
BREYER: --discharge and perform--
JACKSON: --discharge and perform--
BREYER: --all the duties--
JACKSON: --all the duties--
BREYER: --incumbent upon me--
JACKSON: --incumbent upon me--
BREYER: --as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States--
JACKSON: --as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
BREYER: --under the Constitution--
JACKSON: --under the Constitution--
BREYER: --and laws of the United States.
JACKSON: --and laws of the United States.
BREYER: So help me God.
JACKSON: So help me God.
[00:00:02]
ROBERTS: And now, on behalf of all of the members of the court, I am pleased to welcome Justice Jackson to the court and to our common calling.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MENENDEZ: Congratulations, Justice Jackson, children in America have a new justice to look up to. And on that note, I wish you a good night from all of our colleagues across the networks of NBC News. Thank you for staying up late. We`ll see you at the end of tomorrow.