Summary
The January 6th committee members give an inside look into what the hearings will contain and the panel announces a second hearing scheduled for next week. Another indictment is added to the list as the Department of Justice charges the longtime leader of the Proud Boys and four of his deputies with seditious conspiracy. The aftermath of another deadly weekend with mass shootings around the US. And Elon Musk threatens to walk away from his deal to buy Twitter.
Transcript
LAWRENCE O`DONNELL, MSNBC HOST: That is tonight`s "LAST WORD." THE 11TH HOUR with Stephanie Ruhle starts now.
[23:00:20]
STEPHANUE RUHLE: Tonight, kicking off a critical week for this country days from the first January 6 hearing the prime time plan and what a brand new indictment reveals about the investigation.
Plus, after another deadly weekend, more than a dozen mass shootings in multiple cities, are we any closer to actually ending the violence.
And yet another threat from Elon Musk in his bid to take over Twitter as THE 11TH HOUR gets underway on this Monday night.
Good evening. Once again, I`m Stephanie Ruhle. And we are at the start of what could be a pivotal week for this nation. The January 6 committee is about to reveal what it has learned about efforts to keep Donald Trump in the White House after he lost the election.
On Thursday night, the committee starts a series of public hearings after nearly a year of investigations. According to The Washington Post, lawmakers will be relying on insider testimony and previously unseen evidence to build their case.
Today, one of the Jan. 6 committee members described what we`re about to see.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): We`re going to tell the story of a conspiracy to overturn the 2020 presidential election and block the transfer of power. Donald Trump and the White House were at the center of these events. That`s the only way really of making sense of the moral.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RUHLE: The panel also says a second hearing has now been scheduled for next Monday at 10:00 a.m. Eastern. These hearings are getting underway alongside a wide and still unfolding Justice Department investigation of the insurrection.
Late today, the DOJ charged the longtime leader of the Proud Boys and for his deputies with seditious conspiracy. That is a very serious, but difficult to prove crime. And the Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio wasn`t even in DC on January 6, but prosecutors say he directed his group`s activities from Maryland, as they attacked police officers on Capitol Hill. Nearly one year ago, some of those officers injured in the riot told the committee about those very attacks.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SGT. AQUILINO GONELL, U.S. CAPITOL POLICE: On January 6, for the first time, I was more afraid to work at the capitol in my entire deployment to Iraq.
OFC. MICHAEL FANONE, D.C. METROPOLICAN POLICE: I heard chanting from some in the crowd, get his gun and kill him with his own gun. I was electrocuted again. And again and again with a taser.
OFC. DANIEL HODGES, D.C. METROPOLITICAN POLICE: I was effectively defenseless and gradually sustaining injury from the increasing pressure of the mob. Directly in front of me a man sees the opportunity to get my vulnerability, grabbed the front of my gas mask and used it to beat my head against the door.
OFC. HARRY DUNN, U.S. CAPITOL POLICE: One woman in a pink MAGA shirt yelled you hear that guys noted for Joe Biden. Then the crowd perhaps around 20 people joined in screaming boo.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RUHLE: NBC News has confirmed a filmmaker who was with the Proud Boys before and during the capital attack will be a key witness at the first hearing Thursday night. Our coverage will begin at 7:00 p.m. Eastern on that very evening.
And as we await those hearings, the nation`s deadly toll from mass shootings will that`s only going in one direction, up. This weekend, gun violence took more than a dozen more lives.
In the Senate talks continue on a bipartisan gun safety deal. POLITICO reporting, Republicans are now giving serious consideration to the Democrats proposals. Senator Chris Murphy, who is deeply involved in these discussions says the focus is on a deal that would avoid a filibuster.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP))
SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D-CT): Everything that we include in this piece of legislation has to be able to get 60 votes in the Senate and right now we`re actively exploring what can we get 60 votes. I don`t think there`s any reason why we came to agreement by the end of the week, but I`m not interested in setting arbitrary deadline.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RUHLE: There`s a lot to cover tonight. So let`s get smarter with some help from our lead off panel. Peter Baker joins us, chief White House correspondent for The New York Times. Leigh Ann Caldwell, a live anchor with the Washington Post. She also co-authored the papers Early 202 Morning newsletter and Professor Melissa Murray of the NYU Law School. She was a law clerk for Sonia Sotomayor on the federal bench before her nomination to the Supreme Court.
Leigh Ann, I want to start with you in that interview you had with committee members Jamie Raskin. I want to share a bit more of what he said
[23:05:05]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RASKIN: The committee has found evidence of concerted planning, in premeditated activity. The idea that all of this was just a routing demonstration that spontaneously got a little bit out of control is absurd. You don`t almost knock over the U.S. government by accident.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RUHLE: He also said they found evidence on Trump himself that supports a lot more than incitement. What does that mean?
LEIGH ANN CALDWELL, THE WASHINGTON POST LIVE ANCHOR: Yes, so he used that word conspiracy, Steph. I had a couple of takeaways from my interview with Representative Raskin say, especially the fact what you just mentioned that there is more than incitement. And then I pressed him on, if there was in fact a conspiracy and he said he believes there is.
But the question is, is what is the committee do with that? I asked if there was enough evidence for the Department of Justice to take up any sort of charges based on the evidence that the committee has found. And he says that`s up to the Department of Justice, he really wouldn`t speculate. He says he thinks the Department of Justice is going to do its job. But we`ll see what happens on if they do, do that.
Another takeaway is that I asked them, are these hearings about revealing more new information? Or is it about connecting the dots and laying out a narrative for the American public? Who has not been watching this as supposedly as we have? He says it`s a little bit of new revelations, but it`s mostly about telling the people what happened and trying to make it compelling and trying to make people understand stuff.
RUHLE: Well, the question is going to be telling what people who`s watching who`s listening. Liz Cheney, obviously one of two Republicans on the committee, she was asked if the public is going to pay attention to the hearings, and she said, with Trump still out there talking, they better watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. LIZ CHENEY (R-WY): We`re, in fact, in a situation where he continues to use even more extreme language, frankly, than the language that caused the attack. And so people must pay attention, people must watch and they must understand how easily our democratic system can unravel if we don`t defend it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RUHLE: But Peter, here`s the thing. Fox News proper the giant the choice for Republicans to view at night, they`re not even airing the hearings. So are Republicans going to see this thing?
PETER BAKER, THE NEW YORK TIMES CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, that`s a good question. They`re not airing in these hearings. And that does raise questions about whether the people who might change their mind will actually have an exposure to the people who will watch it. We`re looking forward to it probably already made up their mind. That`s the real question, can they change any mind.
Because the company has been very calcified on this very polarized on this, you know, it`s very much depends on which party you believe in, in which candidate or politician you follow. At this point, if you follow President Trump, you`ve got a very jaundiced view of this committee and his work. And you`ve got a forgiving view of the riders and the people who stormed the Capitol on January 6. And the question is, is there a way to change their minds? And if they don`t see these hearings, that`s probably not going to happen.
Now, they may see them anyway. Because not only will they be on other networks, they`ll also be all over the web, there`ll be plenty of ways for people to see them if they choose to. The question is whether they choose to and that`s a big question that nobody can really answer this.
RUHLE: Well, Peter, Axios is now reporting that the committee has hired former ABC News Chief to produce the hearings and effort that Fox News is already crushing, saying, Look, this isn`t facts. This is just a media production. But are they amping up the production to ensure that this isn`t the Mueller hearings part two?
BAKER: Well, you remember of course that the Democrats hope that the Mueller testimony after his report, you know, issue would change the dynamic there as well. They thought, well, you know, they might not read the book, but they`ll see the movie and there`ll be moved by the dramatic testimonies about Mueller will offer and of course he didn`t, he offered very staccato answers very measured on, you know, exciting testimony, some thought he wasn`t really fully engaged in the report.
And that`s why they`re trying to avoid that this time, even more than the impeachment hearings, even more than the Mueller hearings. What they want to do is you know, captivate an audience that has become used to, let`s face it, entertainment as part of politics is not entertaining what happened on January 6, but it has to be compelling, and they`re trying to get across the drama and the importance and the consequence, the gravity and the meaning of what happened. And if they have to use entertainment techniques in order to tell a story that is meaningful to democracy. That`s the goal that they`re seeking here.
RUHLE: But Melissa, here`s the problem. The Mueller report was it filled with horribly damning things. The problem is there were no consequences.
MELISSA MURRAY, NYU LAW PROFESSOR: That`s exactly right, Stephanie.
[23:10:00]
And again I think that`s the real charge for the committee here how to make people understand how to link up all of this disparate information into a narrative that is not only compelling but digestible for a public. That`s not used to sitting for long stretches of time, and listening and hearing the narrative unfold. This is a soundbite generation. And they need to present this in ways that will come across easily to the public.
Some have compared this to Watergate. There are a lot of differences here during Watergate. There were only three networks and they were all carrying this. Now, there are many different sources of news and they can all slant this in very different ways. So the committee has to come up with a very compelling way to explain and join up not only what happened at the Capitol, but how that relates to the continuing threat to democratic government going forward.
RUHLE: Even if the committee puts on quite a compelling show, that`s all they can do, and then make recommendations. They can`t actually inflict any consequences the Justice Department can and that`s what I want to talk about, because now they`ve charged five members of the Proud Boys with seditious conspiracy.
OK, we also not -- several members of the Oath Keepers, that`s another far right violent group, similar charges. And I want to remind our audience, when Donald Trump was asked by Chris Wallace in a presidential debate about the Proud Boys, what did he say, stand by and stand back. Given these charges, is this a sign that we could actually see this thing moving closer to Donald Trump?
MURRAY: We`ve already seen some people in the Trump orbit become part of the committee`s investigation even to be referred to the Department of Justice and be indicted. So Peter Navarro is a prime example.
But as you get closer to the president, there are a lot of questions about executive privilege. We`ve already seen that Mark Meadows and Scavino have been -- they`ve been declined to be prosecuted by the Department of Justice unlikely because not only have they cooperated to some extent, there are also those lingering questions of executive privilege.
So it really does remain to be seen with the DOJ will do as you get closer and closer to the center of the White House and the prospect of charging a former president something that we have never done before.
But I do want to push back on the idea that the special committee can`t do anything on the entire premise of this special committee investigation was to identify places where guardrails or new legislation could be put in place to secure democracy and shore up some of these democratic systems going forward. And they can still do that, again, with a polarized Congress getting that passed, maybe harder, but they can definitely make some suggestions here, and again, charge the American people seeing what with whether or not their representatives will follow through on securing the democracy going forward.
RUHLE: OK, well, they can make suggestions. But here`s the issue. According to Axios, there are divisions within the committee about what`s going to happen after the hearings when it comes to changing voter rights, voting rights or altering the Electoral College. And if they can`t agree, if the committee can agree, then let`s be honest Leigh Ann, there`s not a snowball`s chance in hell, Congress is going to act.
CALDWELL: Yes, that`s absolutely right, a committee who is unified on their mission, but they`ve been some divisions throughout this process, including whether to subpoena a fellow members of Congress like Kevin McCarthy, Jim Jordan, et cetera. They decided to move forward with that, although it hasn`t produced any results yet.
But as far as what comes next, yes, that`s a huge question for the committee. In my interview with Representative Raskin today, he is a huge proponent of getting rid of the Electoral College altogether, though, he said this in a previous interview, and he`s been a proponent of this before.
Today, when I talked to him, though, he really kind of walked that back saying this is just my opinion. This is not the committee`s opinion, just my opinion. And then there`s other legislative proposals as well regarding the Electoral College Act to ensure that that there assure that the vice president cannot overturn the election on January 6, but you know, there`s members of the Senate, and there`s members of the House who are already working on that legislation, haven`t reached an agreement yet.
And so there`s a lot of people who I think will not be satisfied not only in the country, but some in Congress as well and less the former president, there`s consequences for him. And that is just going to be very difficult to come by definitely in Congress, but if the Department of Justice is able or willing to take anything up based on their investigation, and based on what the January 6 committee finds.
RUHLE: Then Peter, how high a bar is that? If you`ve got people across this country that believe that want to see at the end of this, the committee is going to hold Donald Trump accountable for something. They`re not even in a position to do that?
BAKER: Well, you know, you`re right. I mean, look, we`re 17 months after January 6, and we`re still talking about some pretty basic stuff here, right? Is what happen sedition or not.
[23:15:02]
The Justice Department today said the case of these defendants they`ve just charged it is. But that`s, you know, that`s still pretty low level. They haven`t talked to anybody, you know, they haven`t at least seem to charge anybody closer to the President that somebody we know is around the president much less, you know, indicated what kind of investigation they may be engaging of the president.
And so I guess I would just be cautious by expecting that there`s going to be some sort of, you know, great movement to hold him accountable, in that sense, at least in the near future. That doesn`t seem to be that kind of indication. The committee can make recommendations. And there are some things obviously they`re going to talk about that that either has been a conversation about whether they should recommend, you know, the president for prosecution.
But Merrick Garland is made very clear that he`s taking this slow, meticulous and to the point of his critics, maybe too slowly and too meticulously. And I don`t know that we should expect anything big on that front anytime soon.
RUHLE: Then, Melissa, through no fault of anyone`s could we end up in the revenge of the Mueller report, where in the end, we had all of these expectations, and he was sort of like, oh, it was never my job to recommend anything, while the country went what we thought there`d be a big reveal.
MURRAY: Well, I think it`s slightly different from the Mueller report, because we do have this cataclysmic event that happened on January 6, I think people want answers, and the committee actually is in a good position, if not to change hearts and minds, and at least to show individuals how these two apparently disconnected events are actually quite related. How the insurrection at the capitol is related to these ongoing efforts, what we`re seeing now in terms of the efforts to put in place certain Secretaries of State to put forth this independent state legislature theory.
And again, to make it a possibility that in the future, what they were trying to do on January 6, in the capital will actually happen through legal and lawful means. So again, I think there`s a bigger kind of play here. And it`s one of that`s really about public education, and getting the public to see what is really been sort of disparate and hiding in plain sight. But that needs to be explained and explained carefully to bring all of these different points together.
RUHLE: It is not about politics. It is about preservation and protection of our democracy, something that should matter to all Americans and a reminder that the truth matters, but only if you see it, and I certainly hope people tune in. Peter Baker, Leigh Ann Caldwell, Melissa Murray, thank you for starting us off tonight.
When we come back, after yet another weekend of gun violence, Americans are again asking, when is this going to end? They are demanding that we must not look away. We won`t.
And later, we just talked about it. After more than 1000 interviews, the January 6 committee is about to show us their work. We`ll ask the communications director from the Obama White House if it will ever be enough to hold those people accountable. THE 11TH HOUR just getting underway on a Monday night.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:22:30]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JEANNIE SHE, STUDENT DEMAND ACTION ADVISORY BOARD: Every day you fail to take action is another day countless mothers, fathers, teachers, friends and loved ones grieve for 110 more people killed by gun violence every day. Our message is simple. Senators, please act. Don`t look away. Don`t look away. Look away.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RUHLE: Young children wearing bulletproof vests on Capitol Hill with a powerful message you saw right there. Don`t look away. The Giffords organization, a team led by former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords is behind the more than 45,000 flowers now standing on the National Mall to honor the Americans killed each year from gun violence. As our own Gabe Gutierrez reports that grim number is only going up.
(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)
GABE GUTIERREZ, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): A party turning into panic on the streets of Philadelphia. Pandemonium as multiple shooters opened fire, leaving three people then and 11 injured. Late today, a suspect arrested and charged.
JOANNE PESCATORE, HOMICIDE CHIEF, PHILADELPHIA DISTRCT ATTORNEY OFFICE: The gun that he used was left at the scene. It is a ghost gun. And it did have an extended magazine.
GUTIERREZ: Cellphone video appearing to show the confrontation starting the man in the white shirt fighting with another man. Then gunshots.
CROWE WELL (ph), SHOOTING INCIDENT VICTIM: It was total chaos.
GUTIERREZ: And one of the bullets grazing rusty Crowe Wells leg.
WELL (ph): To just say its guns is missing the point without looking at the social problems. But would the social problems be better without access to guns? Absolutely.
GUTIERREZ: Just hours after this weekend`s chaos and Philadelphia, police say two people were shot dead at a nightclub in Chattanooga, Tennessee. According to the gun violence archive, which defines mass shootings as at least four people shot there were 13 of those incidences weekend from Arizona to Michigan, Georgia to South Carolina, at least 17 people killed.
(END VIDEO TAPE)
RUHLE: With us tonight Robyn Thomas, the executive director of the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. She has testified in Congress and before state and local lawmakers as an expert witness on gun laws and the American gun violence epidemic.
Robyn, thank you for joining us again tonight. I want to start by talking about the bipartisan effort in the Senate that they`re working on. Chris Murphy has already said banning assault weapons out, any sort of comprehensive background checks out.
[23:25:00]
If these two basic and essential things aren`t in there, then are we already aiming too low?
ROBYN THOMAS, GIFFORDS LAW CENTER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: I would say yes, Stephanie. I think you know, we you and I`ve talked about this before universal background checks is the floor for everything else. You know, I`ve heard they`re talking about implementing a red flag law or providing funding so that states can implement red flag laws.
Well, if you don`t have universal background checks, then even when you have red flag laws, they`re very, very difficult to enforce and implement. Because we don`t have records at all of those transfers. We can prohibit someone from buying guns using a risk protective order.
But if they can just go around it and buy a gun online or at a gun show or from a private seller, legally, then it doesn`t have the same impact. So I`m really disappointed to hear universal background checks are not part of that discussion.
I don`t know if I`m surprised or not. I had hoped that Uvalde might move the needle in terms of some Republicans realizing that it`s long past time for them to get on with this. I`ve read about some Texas GOP donors speaking out in favor of things like universal background checks in the Dallas paper this morning.
So, I do think that it is time I`m really disappointed to hear that universal background checks and assault weapon regulations are not in the conversation.
RUHLE: Do you think that could make a difference? You know, what we saw in Texas, GOP donors in Texas, to your point saying, we`re going to need to do something. Greg Abbott definitely pays attention to donors.
THOMAS: I think all politicians pay attention to donors. We know the two things they care about the most are votes and money, right. And the problem is, for a long time, the money has been coming from the NRA, from the industry, from some donors who are willing to support unfettered rights to guns.
And it is actually heartening to me to see that that`s changing, because we know that 90 percent of Americans support universal background checks. But unless they`re willing to put their money or their votes behind it, it`s very, very hard to get Republican senators and politicians to act on it. And this says to me that maybe the money is on the table. And that is something that`s going to cause a lot of them to take notice, I believe.
RUHLE: Jason Johnson offered up this suggestion earlier today, watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JASON JOHNSON, POLITICS AND JOURNALISM PROFESSOR, MORGAN STATE UNIVERSITY: You could tell people to vote, you could say to get rid of this person or that person. But if you don`t do anything about voting rights, they can`t vote out the terrible people who are keeping these policies in place. When you get issues that are of importance, when 99 percent of the public is like we`re scared, we want something done. If they`re prevented from expressing their frustration, when it comes to getting to the ballot box, then nothing actually changes.
So I will be connecting this to voting rights. I will be connecting this to January 6. I will be saying we need to get rid of a gun loving terrorists who are trying to kill your grandma at the grocery store.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RUHLE: It makes quite an argument is he right?
THOMAS: I think he is right. I mean, we know that Americans support this. And then we see that the Senate doesn`t act. And I`ve been saying for a long time. If 90 percent of Americans want this, and they`re not doing it, then they clearly don`t represent the will of the American people, the safety of our children, they represent something else.
Now, if people can`t vote, they can get away with that, they can get away with being in the Senate and voting for the NRA and voting for the gun industry. Because there`s nothing we can do to vote them out if people don`t have access to the vote.
So I think he makes a really good point in the sense that there is no way to move this needle until they think their jobs are at stake. That is the thing that motivates them. And if their jobs aren`t at stake, because these laws are being passed that prevent people in their in their districts and their states from actually voting then they can get away with anything.
RUHLE: And yet again, and maybe most distressing these mass shootings proved to be great advertising for gun makers, AR-15 sales are surging in the state of Georgia. Why does this happen right after a shooting. Everyone knows these guns aren`t getting taken away, at least not today, tomorrow or the near future.
THOMAS: I think it`s a couple of things. I think people get scared. I think that there`s a fear response that the world is a really dangerous place. And maybe I need to have a scarier gun, because that`s somehow going to make me safer, which when you think about a shooting like Uvalde is ridiculous. It has nothing to do with whether you own an AR-15 in your home that only puts your entire family at risk of all kinds of gun violence.
I also think there is this false narrative that because these horrible things happen and there`s a conversation and, you know, what we were just discussing about very incremental change, if anything, but this message gets sent out through again, folks like the NRA that you better be careful because now they`re going to start regulating, now they`re going to stop allowing people to buy assault weapons like AR-15 so you better go get yours right now before it gets restricted.
And, you know, as we know, from what Chris Murphy said, that isn`t even on the table but that never stops them from trying to scare gun owners into thinking it is because they want to sell more guns.
[23:30:06]
The NRA represents the industry. The industry wants to make money. They sell this narrative that you have to buy this gun right now. And they make money off of that fear. And it puts American lives at risk, not just at school shootings, but in the home. I mean, having a gun in your home so greatly increases your family`s risk of gun violence. So you`re actually further endangering your family when you buy a gun like this.
But the feeling of being protected by having this gun overwhelms that, overwhelms what the facts tell us and what rationality tells us.
RUHLE: So we need to keep bringing the facts and the rationality. Robyn Thomas, thank you for joining us tonight. You always make us smarter.
Coming up. Speaking of guns, there were guns drawn exactly 516 days ago in the hallowed halls of Congress, reminding Americans just why that was in your 11TH HOUR continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:35:30]
RUHLE: In the immediate aftermath of the January 6 insurrection, a majority of Americans, I`m going to say this again, a majority of Americans agreed that Donald Trump was either solely or mainly responsible.
And as we head into the first televised public hearings from the January Subcommittee on Thursday, new NBC News polling finds only 45 percent of U.S. households now hold the former president responsible. Wonder why that is.
But with us now is Dan Pfeiffer, former White House Communications Director and senior adviser to President Obama, he co-hosts the podcast, Pod Save America. And his new book is a must read, "Battling the Big Lie: How Fox, Facebook and the MAGA Media are Destroying America." It is out tomorrow. That is a summer must read for everybody.
This hearing, Dan, should matter to everyone. Every American that cares about public safety that cares about democracy. What happened we did months ago?
DAN PFEIFFER, FORMER WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: Well, you if you go back to that night, on January 6, the Republicans began trying to rewrite history, while the Capitol still locked down. Matt Gaetz stood up in the House chamber and said it was the Antifa, blame them, started blaming Nancy Pelosi and they`ve been trying to rewrite history.
And what is so scary and it`s why I wrote this book is that they have the capacity to do that, because they have this massive propaganda disinformation operation that dominates the internet, dominates cable news. And it creates this hermetically sealed information bubble to tell a story even though that story is divorced from facts.
RUHLE: But is that what it is? I mean, Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor -- Marjorie Taylor Greene doesn`t even have a committee assignment. He`s done nothing in terms of policy legislative wins, yet they`re hugely powerful in terms of media. Is that what the Republicans have figured out that Democrats haven`t because they`re doing their jobs?
PFEIFFER: I think we live in an attention economy, right? If you can get attention, attention is political power. Your separate. Marjorie Taylor Greene has less power than Capitol Hill intern, yet Kevin McCarthy is scared of her because she can generate attention. She knows how to do that. And that is one of the things I think Democrats have to really learn to do is messaging is two points, what you say and how you get people to pay attention to it.
And Republicans have the advantage that they have this huge megaphone, but we have to figure out how to navigate these very tough waters. And that`s what these hearings about.
RUHLE: OK, but what those Republicans are saying is straight up crazy town, is the answer for him crazy, too crazy.
PFEIFFER: No, absolutely not. We have a very different political rationale than Republicans do. They can win elections because of how our political system is structured, simply by turning out their base. We as Democrats have to convince people who are cynical about politics, we have not been involved before to turnout. We did that in 2018. We do that in 2020, we`re after then 2021. We cannot -- you can`t do that by playing a Republican scape.
We have to have a hopeful, inspirational, aggressive benches that raises the stakes and is a message that has to be about Republicans. That is one thing I think is very clear is that this media environment, this, you know, Facebook, Twitter, et cetera, focus on conflict. And so we`re going to have to pick a fight with the Republicans.
RUHLE: I`m not saying that Democrats need to break the rules or follow what Republicans do. However, are they too careful? Sometimes it seems like Democrats won`t sing Happy Birthday until every kid in America has a cupcake. It would be great if they did. But you got to win elections.
PFEIFFER: We absolutely have to be more aggressive. And in this book, I lay out some ways in which Democrats can do that.
RUHLE: Tell us.
PFEIFFER: And one of the -- I think we -- what we have to recognize is that the we have to what I really meant was radically rethink how we communicate with voters. Because what we`re doing right now is the old way of doing business, right? Pre -- it`s almost pre social media, pre internet. We go out we say our message, we hope the media will carry it to our voters. But the world has changed so much. And we have to do with things Republicans have done very well. They`ve invested in ideological media that is aligned with them. Democrats have not done that.
RUHLE: I don`t know what that means.
PFEIFFER: That means that they invested in Fox News, they have invested in every one of these Breitbart, Gateway Pundit, Daily Wire, all of these people are backed by Republican billionaires. They funded it because they think that is good politics. They understand the internet economy, the attention economy. That is not happening on our side. There was very few investment in media.
RUHLE: OK, but are you giving Republicans too much credit? Right, people keep saying we`ll get the following Donald Trump as Joe Biden doesn`t have that following. Hold on a minute though. He has a cult leader like following.
PFEIFFER: Yes.
[23:40:02]
RUHLE: He didn`t win the election. He has cult like followers that are tattooing Trump on their chests but Joe Biden beat him by 7 million votes while Trump was in office. They lost the House. They lost the Senate. He`s a loser.
PFEIFFER: Donald Trump is absolute loser because 100 percent agree with that.
RUHLE: Loser.
PFEIFFER: But the -- but we -- I think Democrats have a -- we just have a harder task because of the way the Electoral College and the Senate give disproportionate political power to that Republican base. Joe Biden won by 7 million votes. That`s right. Hillary Clinton won by several million votes.
But in an Electoral College, and this is what is so scary. And I think this speaks to the power of Republican disinformation propaganda is in the middle of a pandemic that Donald Trump screwed up on live television, every single day, hundreds of thousands of Americans died. He came within 40,000 votes and a few states were winning reelection. That is a problem. And that is something we have to address and go after.
RUHLE: OK, then one of the main ways to do it would be to preserve voting rights--
PFEIFFER: Yes.
RUHLE: -- to focus on the electoral college.
PFEIFFER: Yes.
RUHLE: Here`s the issue. It`s not sexy. It doesn`t get people excited to vote. How do you manage that?
PFEIFFER: I think you I think what Democrats have to do, and you`ve seen some Democrats do this, this Abrams does this very well, is connect fixing our politics and our democracy to delivering things for real people. Right?
Why do Republic -- Why have Republicans worked so hard to suppress the vote to regard democracy because they have this extremist, unpopular agenda and the only way they can do that prevented from happening.
The reason that Roe v. Wade is on the cusp of being overturned, is because Republicans are very, very democracy. The reason we can`t get common sense gun control measures passed, like in your previous segment, the assault weapons ban is not even on the table is because our democracies are beaten.
It`s rigged, structurally. And it`s rigged because of this massive right wing media and manage and we have to take both of those things and we have to do it aggressively. And Democrats, I think, to their credit, we`re ready to do a lot of those things. But Joe Manchin Kyrsten Sinema got in the way.
RUHLE: I got a big tense, hard to fit everybody under it. Please, please come back soon. Serious strategy if needed ahead of these midterms. You better read this book, Dan Pfeiffer`s book "Battling the Big Lie: How Fox, Facebook and the MAGA Media are Destroying America."
Coming up. What is Elon Musk doing? Seriously? What? Inside the musings of the world`s richest man when THE 11TH HOUR continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:47:00]
RUHLE: Elon Musk also known as Captain Chaos, asserting his right to break off his $44 billion deal to buy Twitter. In the news securities filing, Musk`s lawyers argue the social media company is refusing his data requests about spam and fake accounts on the platform. Twitter says it has and will continue to share information with Musk and that it intends to quote, close the transaction and enforce the merger agreement at the agreed price and terms.
Let`s welcome back our friend and colleague, NBC News tech correspondent Jake Ward, he`s been covering disinformation and studies the effect of social media platforms on human behavior.
Jake, I want to start by clearing something up. When Musk put in a bid for this company, he waived his right to due diligence. He did it -- he put it in the merger agreement. That`s like saying you`re buying a house and you waive your right to an inspection. So, that`s on you if you get into that house and the plumbing doesn`t work.
JAKE WARD, NBC NEWS TECH CORRESPONDENT: Well, that`s absolutely right, Stephanie, and Captain Chaos is definitely the phrase here. I mean, it is amazing to imagine. Can you imagine stepping up to the plate on a purchase like that and saying, You know what, I don`t need to look through the basement, I don`t need to look through the attic. I don`t need a termite inspection. I`m good.
And now of course, we`re talking here about a tremendous complaint saying that essentially a big chunk of the platform is spam bots, and that he needs to see deeper into it. You know, none of that really makes sense. Considering that he just absolutely put aside his chance to go deep into the inner workings of this company and just ponied up the promise of the money. So yes, an extraordinary turn of events here.
RUHLE: However, let`s say I bought a house and waive the inspection. But when I bought the house, it said it`s a four bedroom, two bath, then I buy the house, I walk inside and I find out it`s a studio apartment. He is claiming or his lawyers are claiming that the company misrepresented a whole bunch of data. How do we know if that`s true or not? The company saying no way. This just feels like it`s going to end up in a very, very expensive court battle.
WARD: I think that`s exactly right. You know, we`re looking here, I think at a very rocky downward path stumbling toward a court date. Because, yes, you`re absolutely right. I mean, he is using the legal theory that this is some sort of faulty product, right? Misadvertised. But he`s also asking, you know, Twitter to basically open up its data to him at a time when they`re probably not really totally convinced that this is going to go forward.
We hear that inside Twitter as of today, employees on slack channels are openly saying, you know, this might not actually come together. So if you`re in Twitter`s position, you`re not going to open up your system to this guy, you know, and in the end, it`s going to come down to who can afford more court time.
And I think at this point, you know, as you mentioned, this is the world`s richest man. I mean, he can go and go and go when it comes to throwing money at lawyers. It`s not clear that Twitter would want to do that. And perhaps in the end, there`s going to be a game of chicken that takes place in front of a judge.
RUHLE: All right, he can spend a whole lot of money on low lawyers but he has less money than he did just a few weeks ago when he put this bid in for the company Tesla was worth a lot more, Twitter was worth a lot more. Is all of this just a public embarrassing game for him to negotiate a lower price?
[23:50:14]
WARD: It seems like it probably is. I mean, there`s really very little chance that this is, you know, based on some sort of grand philosophical purpose. In my experience, when you`re dealing with people who run these kinds of companies to the tune of billions and billions of dollars, they don`t do anything unless it has multiple purposes. So it seems here, like this tactic has to do with driving down that price, you know, who can blink first in court kind of situation may very well, get him the lower price he`s looking for.
The question is just going to be, you know, is this going to go his way? Can he make this happen? One little note, I`ll just throw into that, I think is a really interesting new wrinkle is that the Texas Attorney General, has just announced that he`s actually going to be looking into the question of bots on Twitter.
Texas, as you know, is the new home of Tesla. So that`s a funny coincidence. So we`re looking at this strange moment. I`m just wondering what`s going to come next. It`s really curious to see what is he going to try and pony up, you know, sort of cozy up to Republican politicians, perhaps is he going to try and get in the right camp ahead of the midterms? And that`ll somehow put him in the right position. I don`t know where this thing is headed. I wish I did.
But it is a fantastically amazing to watch this guy. Now saying I didn`t, you know, you didn`t tell me what I was buying. You know, and definitely seems like it`s all headed to court at this point. Stephanie.
RUHLE: Amazing are awful. The Texas Attorney General saying nothing about guns the week after a mass shooting in that state. But in some circles, people are saying he`s now doing Elon Musk`s bidding for him. Is this going to make any difference with the Attorney General wants to do?
WARD: You know, it`s not entirely clear that it will but I don`t know perhaps in his position, you`re in a, you know, a place where the more pressure brought to bear from external forces, the better. You know, this is not to insinuate that he is somehow arranging this, but it is interesting.
And also, you know, the question of, you know, beating up on social media, like Twitter is a fame, a favorite thing to have in Republican political circles at this point. And so the closer he can get to conservative political figures like the Texas AG, the better he`s probably going to do.
So, all this pressure being brought to bear may very well simply be a way of just driving the price down. But it`s going to be just -- it`s going to be a bruising fight one way or another. And it winds up being, you know, possibly about politics in this way. Just a real messier, Stephanie.
RUHLE: Gary Gensler on the SEC. Are they paying attention to all this having this public battle and moving markets. Jake Ward, always great to see you. Thanks for joining us.
Coming up. For facts sake, you still cannot just go on TV and start lying about politics. Yet one party is trying real, real hard when THE 11TH HOUR continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:57:33]
RUHLE: The last thing before we go tonight, false advertising. The National Republican Senatorial Committee is planning to spend big bucks this campaign season, about $53 million to try to turn the Senate red. Yet over the last three weeks, the group has already been forced to pull two of those very ads. Why? For being dishonest. The first was one targeting Democratic senator Maggie Hassan. She`s in New Hampshire. Watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Let`s face it, politicians think we`re fallible take Senator Maggie Hassan. She votes against drilling for natural gas and the Keystone pipeline. Prices are sky high, but now Hassan is trying to fool us.
UNIDENTFIEID MALE: One senator is fighting to lower your costs.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Come on as governor she increased gas taxes 23 percent.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RUHLE: That`s a lie. For facts sake. That last claim is simply not true. Gas prices actually fell in the state of New Hampshire while Hassan was governor. The senator`s campaign responded to that ad by saying this. While McConnell and his allies spread falsehoods, Senator Hassan will remain laser focused on fighting for a gas tax holiday to provide Granite Staters much-needed relief the pump.
The next attack ad pulled from the airwaves made this false claim about North Carolina Democratic Senate candidate Sherry Beasley.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Our children our society`s most vulnerable, and Chief Justice Sherry Beasley has failed them. A man seeking sex with a boy online, she tossed the conviction. The predator who sexually assaulted a seven-year-old girl Beasley threw out the indictment, a child porn offender. She voted to set him free.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RUHLE: No, not even close. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee points out that that last issue that is a state justice she set a child porn offender free. That is absolutely false. What it is, is complicated.
What she actually did was uphold a ruling that there was an illegal search of the convicted man`s thumb drive. The case then went back to trial for reconsideration. And he remained in prison at that time.
Attacks like that might remind you of those aimed at Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson during her Supreme Court confirmation hearings, and with just 22 weeks left until the general midterm election, let`s I hope that the Republican Senate campaigns can just stick to the facts as they try to make their case to the American people.
[00:00:08]
And on that note, I wish you all a very good and safe night. And from all of our colleagues across the networks of NBC News, thanks for staying up late with us. I will see you at the end of tomorrow.