Summary
Admitted QAnon follower Nicolas Languerand who was given 44 months for assaulting an officer with a dangerous weapon. The Department of Justice and the January 6 Committee are investigating the Trump campaign`s fake electors` plot. A federal judge ruled John Eastman must respond to the House Select Committee subpoena for e-mails he sent during his time at Chapman University.
Transcript
JOY REID, MSNBC HOST: And that is tonight`s absolute worst. And that is also to REIDOUT. "ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES" starts now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST (voiceover): Tonight on "ALL IN."
STEVE BANNON, FORMER WHITE HOUSE CHIEF STRATEGIST: Why is the Trump campaign sending its own slate of electors to the state capitols?
HAYES: The Department of Justice and the January 6 Committee investigate the Trump campaign`s fake electors` plot. Tonight, Michigan Secretary of State joins me with new evidence of fraud.
RUDY GIULIANI, FORMER LAWYER OF DONALD TRUMP: So that if we get a water to stay, our electors are right there, and they can slip right in.
HAYES: Then, as Justice Breyer formally announces his retirement, the unhinged backlash against his replacement is already in full throat.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I`m sure it will be, as Guy said, a Black woman. We saw how well that worked out with Kamala Harris.
HAYES: Plus, as new reporting on the Matt Gaetz scandal keeps coming, how is he still in Congress? And a political gap for the ages from Senator Ron Johnson.
SEN. RON JOHNSON (R-WI): I`ve never really felt it was society`s responsibility to take care of other people`s children.
HAYES: When ALL IN starts right now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES (on camera): Good evening from New York. I`m Chris Hayes. Another rioter at the Capitol on January 6 received a serious prison sentence today, admitted QAnon follower Nicolas Languerand who was given 44 months for assaulting an officer with a dangerous weapon.
According to the Department of Justice, he threw an orange traffic barrier and to stick-like objects and officers who were protecting the Lower West terrorists` entrance to the Capitol building. "The items were capable of inflicting serious bodily injury."
Languerand also bragged about the attack on social media like so many of his cohort veiling that "Next time, we come back with rifles." And while we are continuing to see formal accountability for the insurrection`s foot soldiers, there are also investigations underway on multiple fronts that are moving up the chain of command.
We`ve been following the case of Elmer Stewart Rhodes, of course, the founder and leader of the Oath Keepers gang, who was allegedly the mastermind behind a plot to take the Capitol and to halt the peaceful transfer of power by force on January 6. Rhodes has been in jail since his arrest and indictment earlier this month on multiple charges, including seditious conspiracy.
Today, we learned he will remain in jail until his trial which is tentatively set for July. Rhodes was denied bail in part because the judge deemed him a flight risk. And that was based on the fact that he appears to have constructed elaborate escape tunnels in his backyard.
And how do we know about that? Well, Rhodes` ex-wife posted these photos of what she described as a training spider hole he built to hide from federal officers in case they came looking for him. And now, going even further up the chain, federal prosecutors are looking into the phony electoral certifications that were sent to the National Archives from multiple states falsely declaring Donald Trump the winner of the 2020 election.
The way I think about this scheme, it`s sort of like when you`re a kid in school, elementary school, and you get a letter sent home, maybe it`s about a bad grade, maybe about getting attention for some misbehavior, you might try to just forge your parents` signature, take it back the next day. This was like that, but for a coup that would end American democracy.
Now, there`s a somewhat technical process for electing a president, specifically how electors are chosen and sent to vote for the president. But basically, in in practically every state, the winner of the popular vote in that state gets to send all of their electors to vote for that candidate.
So, after the 2020 election, Trump supporters in seven different states that Joe Biden won sent phony certificates to the National Archives claiming that they were the actual electors. This is what that document looked like from Arizona. And the National Archives received the same kind of thing from Georgia, Michigan, New Mexico, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. And the National Archives is the place that these certificates get sent. It`s just getting sent from people that didn`t actually win.
Now in some cases, the documents are signed by the top state Republican Party officials. This was not just some like freelance group of wackos. So, even though this may sound like sort of flailing, almost again, comical attempt, like forge a parent signature, sending some fake documents hoping the national archives will notice, like, oh, look, we got this from Arizona. It was actually part of a very coordinated plan by Donald Trump and his allies. They knew full well. These documents were not legitimate. One might even say fraudulent.
But as Congressman Jamie Raskin, a member of the January 6 Committee told The New York Times, "The phony electors were part of a plan to create chaos on January 6 as a pretext for a contingent election. They were an effort to create the illusion of contested state results in order to trigger the second part of the plan, to give Mike Pence an excuse to reject the electors, stop the certification Joe Biden as the winner, and keep Donald Trump in power.
Now, we`re still waiting to find out what, if anything, the January 6 Committee that Congressman Raskin sits on is going to do about it. But Raskin and other members have said they are now looking at the fake certificates. And that`s not all. Just last week, former Trump campaign adviser Boris Epshteyn admitted to this plot, telling my colleague Ari Melber, that he was involved, and another familiar name was in charge.
[20:05:36]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BORIS EPSHTEYN, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN ADVISER: Yes, I was part of the process to make sure there were alternate electors for when, as we hoped, the challenges to the seated electors would be heard and will be successful, part of the fourth amendment of the Constitution and the Electoral Count Act. Everything that was done was done legally by the Trump legal team by -- according to the rules, and under the leadership of Rudy Giuliani.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Well, it was done by the Trump legal team. But whether it was done legally or not, that`s a real open question. Because it doesn`t work like this, not supposed to work like this. It hasn`t really ever happened before. And it seems like there`s a pretty strong argument for potential criminality here.
Again, the Trump supporters who signed each of the seven phony certificates claimed when they signed that they were, and I quote here, "the duly elected and qualified electors for the President and Vice President of the United States of America from their respective state. That`s facially false. That`s not true. The thing they attested to in signatures and sends to the National Archives was a lie.
The potential for charges related this plot is also picking up steam and it has implications that range across the entire country because this plot was happening in seven different states. In Georgia, as the Atlanta Journal- Constitution points out today, high-ranking state Republicans could face criminal scrutiny. Georgia Republican Party Chairman David Shafer and state senator Burt Jones, now a leading candidate for lieutenant governor, were among the fake electors.
In Wisconsin, the issue could be headed to court. For nearly a year, the bipartisan state Elections Commission has been considering a complaint alleging that Republicans who signed the false certificate committed fraud. They have made no moves yet. And lawyers who brought the case said they will act if the commission does not soon.
And then there`s Michigan. In Michigan, you might have seen this, Attorney General Dana Nessel gave federal prosecutors information from her investigation into the matter earlier this month. She says there is enough evidence to charge the 16 phony Republican electors.
And Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson just shared new evidence with the January 6 committee and with U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland about coordination between the former President and his team and the Michigan officials, again, who carried out the fake electors plot.
It includes an audio recording of the co-chair of the Michigan Republican Party who himself was one of the face -- fake electors, saying that -- herself, saying that Trump asked her and others to carry out the scheme to circumvent the electoral process.
And Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson joins me now. Secretary, can you tell us what this recording is and what evidence there is of what this plot was and who is directing it?
JOCELYN BENSON, SECRETARY OF STATE, MICHIGAN: Oh, yes. Thanks for having me, Chris, and for really connecting the dots for a lot -- for your viewers just now. It was really great and underscores what this additional evidence is seeking to do.
I mean, at this moment, when all of this is happening in December of 2020, Rudy Giuliani is visiting the state of Michigan testifying before a sham legislative hearing about, you know, false allegations of wrongdoing in the election. There are other conversations happening between the White House and legislators.
So, a lot of this evidence that -- and all of that was submitted to the committee through our effort this week, is designed to put all of these receipts, if you would say so, in the hands of federal investigators who have the ability to look further into what was happening behind the scenes, what other conversations happen, what coordination there was between this effort to lie to the federal government about who the electors were for the state of Michigan, and other coordination that ultimately could have led to and underscored the tragedy at our U.S. Capitol on January 6.
HAYES: So, two things strike me about -- we`ll focus on the plot in your state, although it`s replicated in state after state is it`s not -- you know, it`s not just like random activists. I mean, you know, it`s not like a bunch of people get together and say, we`re going to do this, in many cases, the folks who are going to be the electors if Trump carried the state. And it`s also not -- it`s coordinated with the Trump campaign and through the Republican Party.
I mean, tell me about that, what you know about the degree of coordination and who was involved?
BENSON: Yes, I mean, first, let`s acknowledge, candidates don`t get to choose electors. Voters choose the electors. And so, you have this --
HAYES: Yes. Well, yes, you would hope. I mean, you know, I think that`s a better system, frankly, yes.
[20:10:00]
BENSON: Yes. And that was something that I had to say a lot during the -- you know, when there were candidates trying to claim victory before the voters had, you know, completely had their say. So, all that to say, you know, there was evidence, there were local cases coming out of Antrim County that were about a local ballot initiative that suddenly had the not just interest but connections to Trump`s attorneys and his campaign, to the point where Sidney Powell had access to documents that were not public but were a part of this lawsuit, and then submitted them to the U.S. Supreme Court as part of a an effort to again, show some sort of, you know, malfeasance with regards to our elections falsely so.
And so there`s, there`s just a lot of smoke here, a lot of details that we as, you know, myself as the chief election officer, we don`t have the authority to necessarily investigate and go further into what connections there may have been. But there`s enough there that the January 6 Committee does have the authority and ability to gather that additional evidence so that we can get a full story of not just what happened in the States to try to nullify the vote votes of 5.5 million citizens and others all across the country, but also, you know, underlie the violence and the terror that happened on the day that these electoral counts are happening and being, you know, voted and collected on in the U.S. Capitol.
So, it`s all about accountability at this point, knowing and allowing the entire truth of who was involved to unfold so that we can see full consequences for all involved, also with an eye towards making sure it doesn`t happen again.
HAYES: At the risk of stating something obvious, I feel like it`s worth reiterating a point just because, you know, no one actually pays much attention to the technical sort of chain of custody of the Electoral College and the electors, right? Like, there`s a call made in the media and then the next president is inaugurated, and it`s a transition, right? That didn`t happen here because of the resistance of the incumbent president who wanted to forestall the peaceful transfer of power.
But just to be clear, this -- there`s no precedent for this in your state or other -- right? Like, it`s not the case ever before that when someone wins, the other people like, decide to send in their own certificates just in case maybe their appeals come through.
BENSON: Yes, exactly. This is unprecedented. And I think what -- the point we`re also trying to show the committee with this additional evidence is that nothing happened in isolation. Everything was connected. From the moment our unofficial results were released 24 hours after the polls closed, and then subsequently, almost every day after that, there were attempts to harm the full certification of the results, interfere with that certification at the local level and at the state level.
And then, you know, in our -- when we met at the capitol -- the State Capitol on December 14, to have individuals actually show up outside claiming that they should be let in because they were the actual electors.
So, all of these things are happening the same time Trump and his attorneys are coming to Michigan talking to legislators. And again, at the time, we were just trying to protect the will of the people and make sure we got those actual real certificates to the National Archives so that everything could actually go according to law, knowing that there were a lot of efforts to try to stop us from doing so.
And now, it`s about really connecting the dots between all of those efforts so that we cannot just again, see and ensure everyone is accountable, but be able to tell the whole story so that if anyone tries this again, we`re there and ready to stop it.
HAYES: Yes. You were one of the states, and there were several where this sort of alternate fake, fraudulent set of electors actually met, right? I mean, they attempted to meet. They met in some secret room in the Capitol. I think that happened in Arizona as well, partly because my understanding is that`s under law, that`s what they have to do, right?
So, they`re trying to sort of, you know, cosplay all the steps so that they can claim they`re the rightful electors, but obviously they`re not.
Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, thank you for your time tonight.
BENSON: Thanks for having me, Chris.
HAYES: Soon, another batch of crucial evidence will be headed to the hands of the January 6 Committee after one of the central figures in Donald Trump`s coup attempt lost his fight to block their subpoena.
Next, what the ruling, in this case, can mean for other witnesses fighting subpoenas and why the committee is eager to get John Eastman`s e-mails next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:15:00]
HAYES: One of the key people in the January 6 Committee investigation into Trump`s attempts to overturn the presidential election is a conservative lawyer named John Eastman. He wrote that now-infamous memo to Trump where he outlined how then Vice President Mike Pence could throw out the 2020 election results and essentially unilaterally keep Trump in office.
He was there on January 6 next to Rudy Giuliani on the stage spreading the big lie that the Election have been stolen. And his lawyer just confirmed that Eastman was definitely working for Trump at key moments in the days leading up to January 6.
The Committee first subpoenaed Eastman back in November, and he has been dodging and fighting them ever since. Eastman pled the fifth 146 times when he appeared before the committee last month. And he`s been trying to keep these papers out of their hands too but a judge just dashed his hopes on that.
Michael Isikoff, Chief Investigative Correspondent for Yahoo! News is covering the latest developments on the Eastman case, and he joins me now. Michael, set this up for me. What documents did the committee want access to and how has Eastman trying to block them?
MICHAEL ISIKOFF, CHIEF INVESTIGATIVE CORRESPONDENT, YAHOO! NEWS: Well, there`s something like 19,000 e-mails that have been identified that were exchanges between Eastman who was then at Chapman University in California, and Trump and his legal team. So, that is a pretty substantial body of evidence right there.
The committee subpoenaed Chapman University for these e-mails because they were apparently on -- a big chunk of them were on the Chapman University server. Eastman went to court to try to block the committee from getting his e-mails. This is just a few days after he invoked the Fifth Amendment 146 times when he was deposed by the committee.
And now, Judge David Carter in California is hearing this dispute. He ordered that Eastman and his lawyers produce a privilege log identifying which of those e-mails they want to claim were covered by attorney-client privilege.
But the most interesting development in the hearing the other day on this case was the lawyer for Chapman University, who said in court that all of these e-mails were improper, unauthorized, and he likened them to contraband because these -- this was a Chapman University server. It wasn`t Eastman`s personal server.
So, the idea that you could have attorney-client communications on a third- party server is not likely to fly with Judge Carter.
[20:20:43]
HAYES: Right. So, he`s e-mailing on his chapman.edu e-mail address in the midst of this frenetic period of essentially coup plotting with the Trump folks. They`re sitting on the server. I want to read from your piece here because I thought it was striking as well. The lawyer for Chapman University whose computer hosts the e-mail, told the judge the professor had no rights to use university e-mail system for his representation of Trump because it was partisan work on behalf of a political candidate, a violation of the university status is a nonprofit. Any use by Eastman of Chapman e-mails on behalf of Trump was "improper" and Unauthorized" said Fred Plevin, a lawyer for Chapman. I liken it to contraband as you just said.
ISIKOFF: Right.
HAYES: So then -- so, you`ve got -- you`ve got the actual possessors of the document saying, have at them, these are contraband. And now the claim that he`s trying to make is that these were protected by attorney-client privilege. Is that right?
ISIKOFF: Right, exactly. And I mean, Chapman`s lawyer has argued that well, Chapman knew -- I`m sorry, Eastman`s lawyer, has argued that Chapman knew that he represented outside clients. Obviously, Chapman is disputing that and disputing that he had the right to do it.
But, you know, it`s a bottom-line reminder for everybody that, you know, if you`re doing personal work, don`t do it on your employer`s computer server, because they own the material, not you.
HAYES: Yes. That`s a news you can use in the segment here. Don`t get -- go to -- sign up for a Gmail or ProtonMail account, very easy to do.
ISIKOFF: Yes.
HAYES: What is -- what do we think is in the documents? I was shocked by that -- by the number of that. And I have to say, in following your reporting, my sense of his centrality ascended in so far as it seemed like he might have been a little bit of an arm`s distance guy who like got this in front of them. But it seems like he was fairly central the whole legal plotting here.
ISIKOFF: He was. There`s no question. You know, John Eastman, who is -- you know, was a law professor, former clerk to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, you know, esteemed in conservative legal circles or was certainly respectable, you know, was, in many ways, one of the most central players in all this.
You know, your previous guest, Secretary of State Michigan Benson said everything is connected. And you were talking about those fake electors. Well, that was central to Eastman`s game plan for blocking the election of Joe Biden is president, to claim that there were disputed electors. I mean, this is laid out in his memo. He wanted Pence to say, no, there`s a dispute about who the legitimate electors are for these, you know, seven states. Therefore, we have to throw them back to the States. You know, there`s a dispute.
Well, there was no dispute. It was totally made up. These were phony electors, clearly. But it was central to the Eastman strategy. So, in many ways, you know, Eastman lays out in these memos he wrote, there were two of them, you know, sort of the game plan for the coup as it were. And, you know, everything that took place in the run-up to that was part -- you know, including, in fact, most centrally the appointment of these fake electors, you know, in order to advance that strategy.
HAYES: Yes. The legal theory, just to be clear here, the legal theory is because the Electoral Count Act contemplates disputed electors is something that had happened before in American history, particularly during Reconstruction, because it contemplates that the idea was, it was kind of like an alley hoop pass.
Like, the states are going to -- they`re going to throw the electors up in the air, and all Pence has to do is grab it and dunk it by being like, well, I don`t know what to tell you here, guys. I`m not making a ruling. I just -- we got a dispute. We got two slates of electors in Arizona. That`s what he`s being urged to do by Eastman, precisely as the means of essentially overturning the election.
ISIKOFF: Exactly. And that`s, you know, precisely what Pence refused to do.
HAYES: Yes.
ISIKOFF: I should say, you know, the one precedent that Eastman was citing was Hawaii in 1960 when the original count had Nixon slightly ahead, there was a recount because the margin was so small. And you know because that recount was ongoing, there were two sets of electors. As it turned out, John F. Kennedy won the state very narrowly and it was those electors that were chosen.
But that was a case where there was legitimately a despute.
HAYES: A material change. Exactly.
[20:25:18]
ISIKOFF: Right. It was a close election. There were two -- yes, nobody was quite sure who was going to win the state. In all of these cases, there was really no dispute. The election has been certified and we knew who the legitimate electors was.
HAYES: Yes, they weren`t showing up the bank teller and saying, I`m Mr. Burns. Michael Isikoff, great reporting. Thank you very much.
ISIKOFF: Thank you.
HAYES: Next, Elise Boddie and Elie Mystal on the conservative meltdown over President Biden`s promise to nominate the first ever Black woman to the Supreme Court. We`ll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RONALD REAGAN, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I`m announcing today that one of the first Supreme Court vacancies in my administration will be filled by the most qualified woman I can possibly find. One who meets the highest standards I will demand for all Court appointments. It`s time for a woman to sit among our highest jurist.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[20:30:12]
HAYES: When he was running for president in 1980, Ronald Reagan pledged to put a woman on the Supreme Court. I didn`t make that up. You just heard it right there. The campaign promise was calculated. It was aimed at shoring up his support with women voters despite his opposition to abortion, and the Equal Rights Amendment.
And when he became president, Reagan made good on the promise and Justice Sandra Day O`Connor became the first woman ever elevated to the Supreme Court. 40 years after Reagan made that pledge, then-candidate Joe Biden promised his own historic Supreme Court nomination.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Number one, I committed that I`m elected president and have an opportunity to appoint someone to the courts, it will be -- I`ll appoint the first Black woman to the court. It is required that they have representation now. It`s long overdue.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Well, today, Supreme Court -- Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen Breyer officially announced his retirement and President Biden said he will make good on his promise.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BIDEN: The person I will nominate will be someone with extraordinary qualifications, character, experience, and integrity. And that person will be the first Black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme Court.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Biden has already appointed more black women to federal appellate courts than any president before him. His predecessor had an abysmal record on that front. I mean, like truly jaw-dropping, OK. As insider reports, "An overwhelming number 192 of Trumps active appointments are white, while only 37 of them are people of color."
Notably, Trump was the first president -- listen, the first president since Richard Nixon not to appoint a single Black judge to a federal appeals court. And let`s be clear, they were appointing a lot of judges. Donald Trump`s judges were also overwhelmingly male. Insider also found that only about 24 percent of Trump`s judges are women.
In contrast, Biden has made a conscious commitment to increase the diversity of judiciary. And now, he is going to nominate the first Black woman to sit on the highest court in this country, a promise that sent conservative media characters into a spiral of racist and sexist tirades.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I`m sure it will be, as Guy said, a Black woman. You know, he`s got a dedication to that. We saw how well that worked out with Kamala Harris.
MATT WALSH, HOST, THE MATT WALSH SHOW: When -- of course they say we want a Black woman, what they really mean is, what we don`t want is a White male.
JEANINE PIRRO, HOST, FOX NEWS CHANNEL: You`ve got to get someone who`s African-American and competent.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right?
PIRRO: And that really is a test.
TUCKER CARLSON, HOST, FOX NEWS CHANNEL: Why doesn`t Biden strike a real blow for equity and just nominate Bridget Floyd because that was George Floyd sister. She`s not a judge or a lawyer or whatever, but at this stage, who cares? Clearly, that`s not the point anymore, this law stuff.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He does that to over politicize something as sacrosanct and that should be free from politics as a Supreme Court.
SEAN HANNITY, HOST, FOX NEWS CHANNEL: To exclude certain candidates based solely on race and gender is beyond extremely divisive. It may even be illegal.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: I am sorry, but these mediocrities, these complete mediocrities are whining about this, these legacy cases. The argument is pretty transparent. They believe that White people are the best, supreme you might even say, and that meritocracy means choosing White people. And if you`re not choosing overwhelmingly white people, then you`re engaged in "affirmative action." That`s the argument.
And the irony here is that is also the argument the conservative Supreme Court is almost certainly going to make this year because they are almost certainly going to strike down race based admissions in higher education across the country, agreeing with precisely the same brain-dead meritocracy argument on view on cable news.
I`m joined now by Elie Mystal, the Justice correspondent for The Nation. His latest piece is titled The many remarkable Black women who could replace Stephen Breyer. And Elise Boddie, a professor of civil rights and constitutional law at Rutgers Law School. She was also appointed to present Joe Biden`s Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court.
Elise, let me start with you. I have to say, I did not know about that Reagan pledge until this was in the discourse. And I think it is striking to say the least the reaction compared to that pledge to what we are seeing now. What do you make of it?
ELISE BODDIE, PROFESSOR OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, RUTGERS LAW SCHOOL: Well, you know, Chris, it`s hard for me to take anything that is said on Fox News seriously. We know that we`ve confined excellence in every corner of America, and that includes Black women. Black women have a lot to contribute to the diversity of the bench and have a lot to contribute to the law.
And so, we -- President Biden will likely hopefully nominate a Black woman who will bring that diversity of perspective and background and life experience to the process of deliberation and to the decisions of the court. And I think that`s extraordinarily important and we should celebrate that when it hopefully happens.
[20:35:08]
HAYES: Yes, the logic here, Elie, it really -- it drives me pretty insane partly because what happened beforehand -- this was I think a little under- covered in Trump`s, but like, it was like a -- like, it was just white people. I mean, not exclusively, but it was unbelievable how racially slanted those appointments were. And the argument is, that`s natural. That`s meritocracy, lots of white people and white men getting jobs. Anything else, that`s affirmative action.
ELIE MYSTAL, JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT, THE NATION: There`s no credible good faith argument that the Republicans, when they are in charge, go out and find the best people available. Because you cannot make an argument that out of the best people available, of the 226 judges that Trump appointed, not one of them was black. You can`t say that there are 226 White people who are qualified and the Black person would be like 228. Like, that`s not -- that`s not a real -- that`s not a credible argument.
Moreover, you went back to Reagan -- you don`t have to go as far back to Reagan. You could go as far back to Bush the first who when Thurgood Marshall tragically died, went out of his way to find a Black person to replace him, and really, quite frankly, found a much more conservative person than he could have ever gotten confirmed if he had found a White person that had Clarence Thomas`s views.
And you don`t have to go back to Bush 41 because you can go to Donald Trump who said directly while Brett Kavanaugh was taking water, and Republicans were saying you should nominate this other person Amy Coney Barrett. No, no, no, I`m saving her for Ginsburg. Then when Ginsburg passed away, he said he wanted a woman to replace Ginsburg. Then the National Review wrote that they wanted a woman to replace Ginsburg so that they would have a woman with them when they overturn Roe v. Wade.
HAYES: Yes. That was the whole plan.
MYSTAL: So, the hypocrisy of these people literally knows no bounds. They are happy to play identity politics when it works in their favor, and they get more conservative people than they could have otherwise gotten. And then they want to turn around with this like, just dripping hypocrisy.
And when Biden says he is going to pick the most qualified person that he can find, and that person is probably not going to be a White guy because they`ve had 108 out of 115 opportunities to be on the Supreme Court already, now that somehow untoward? It is a ridiculous argument, but it`s not surprising from these people.
HAYES: Yes, there were many years of affirmative action on the Supreme Court that restricted who was considered for those positions. But of course, there`s also a conceptual connection here which I find -- I mean, I think people don`t quite understand this.
The court is very likely to essentially strike down any racial consideration at diversity admissions in higher ed this year. And to me, the core conceptual conceit at the heart of both these complaints and this is this kind of like hierarchy of merit that some platonic ideal out there in the world to be divined by people.
And I got to say, Elise, people in elite law are crazy about this. Like, I saw this conservative lawyer saying, this guy (INAUDIBLE) who`s a great lawyer is like, objectively the best. I`m like, dude, there are hundreds of people that could be on the Supreme Court, literally hundreds. Like, everybody, get over yourself.
And there`s thousands of people that could go to Harvard, or UMICH or whatever. This idea that there`s like, some special little thing in people that makes them at the top is the whole driving nonsense behind the courts -- what the court is going to do here, Elise?
BODDIE: Well, it`s -- you know, it`s really outrageous, first of all. I mean, everything that Elie said is exactly correct. It`s a complete double standard. And the problem is once again, that they don`t see excellence across every corner of America, and they don`t want to see excellence. It`s not in their interest to see excellence, because what they`re really trying to preserve is a bastion of White supremacy to be perfectly candid about it.
And so, you know, I had -- I do have to say that with respect to the -- to the case that the court has taken that could, you know -- I mean, I`m concerned, I don`t love it that the court took this case. I do think it`s important to bear in mind, however, it may sound crazy to viewers, but we have been surprised several times before by this court. We thought race- conscious admissions was dead in 2003. And Justice Sandra Day O`Connor, you know, voted in favor of race-conscious admissions, and actually wrote a really beautiful opinion in many ways. Anthony Kennedy in 2016 voted to uphold the University of Texas policy.
So, I think we have to be careful, you know, not to normalize radical outcomes here. And that would be a radical outcome because we`re dealing with over four decades of cases that have affirmed the importance of race- conscious admissions. Higher education wants this. Colleges and universities want to be able to continue to do this. They know how to do this. It`s critically important for Higher Ed. It`s critically important for this country that we provide pathways of opportunity for diverse groups of people.
So, if the court is going to strike it down, they`re going to have to bulldoze through a lot of law. They`ve also called for the court to overturn the seminal 2003 decision that I mentioned just a moment ago, Grutter versus Bollinger. But let`s not accept that it`s a fait accompli.
HAYES: Yes, that`s -- you sound exactly -- you sound like my wife, Kate, who I think takes the same view on this to not -- don`t -- you know, don`t let them off the hook by catastrophizing that the worst is yet to come because the law is on the side of the right outcome here so don`t -- you know, don`t take that off their plate.
But it does strike me too. There`s politics here, Elie. I mean, I remember I was really genuinely kind of horrified by the reaction to Sonia Sotomayor. And I know a lot of Latino people were. It was so gross. It was so like, dismissive, like this woman, this affirmative action case. And I do think there`s like -- there`s some real political danger here in how Republicans talk about this nominee, honestly.
MYSTAL: Well, I mean, first of all, everybody who`s preemptively having a problem with Biden`s potential nominee of a black woman were all -- like, cut their teeth on denigrating the qualifications and the credentials of Sonia Sotomayor.
And one of the longer-term problems that we have is that after these people just show their backside, show showed themselves for the for the racist charlatans that they are, they were -- during the Sotomayor confirmation, they were readmitted back into the academy, put back on TV, put back in professorships, like there was never a punishment for them doing that to Sotomayor, so they`re just going to do it again. That`s like a long-term problem with our -- with our society, I believe.
But the other thing that people just really need to understand, you don`t get more qualified in a kind of straight-up old-school traditional prestige way than some of the people that Biden has on this list. Ketanji Brown Jackson, we`re talking about a Harvard College, Harvard Law, U.S. Sentencing Commission`s former public defender, been on the bench for eight years which is longer than Amy Coney Barrett. I mean, we`re talking about an immensely qualified person.
Sherrilyn Ifill, head of the NAACP LDF. That`s Thurgood Marshall`s old job. Like, we have amazing lights to pick from even if he just focuses on Black women. And you can`t actually assail their qualifications. So, that`s why they`re playing these racial dog whistles because they actually can`t come at them professionally.
HAYES: They`re more like human whistles, honestly. Elie Mystal -- I mean, we can all hear them -- and Elise Boddie, thank you both. I appreciate that.
MYSTAL: Thanks for having me.
BODDIE: Thanks, Chris.
HAYES: Coming up, what is going on the investigation to Matt Gaetz? Seriously, it`s something I keep asking myself. Like, how does this dude just still kind of bopping around? I`ll talk to a reporter who knows the case inside and out about where things stand, just ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:45:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Governor Romney, do you have a statement for the Palestinians?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What about your gaffes>
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Governor Romney, do you feel like your gaffes have overshadowed your foreign trip?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Gaffes are funny things in politics especially what becomes a gaffe, what doesn`t. I`m old enough to remember what happened to Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean back in 2004 when he tried to fire up supporters After a disappointing third place finish in the Iowa caucuses.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HOWARD DEAN, FORMER GOVERNOR OF VERMONT: Not only are we going to New Hampshire, Tom Harkin, we`re going to South Carolina and Oklahoma and Arizona and North Dakota and New Mexico. We`re going to California and Texas and New York. And we go to South Dakota and Oregon and Washington and Michigan. And then we go to Washington DC to take back the White House.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: That scream, if you can call it that, was a multi-day, maybe week long news story, viral moment in American politics in the early days of the internet, and it helped doom Dean`s chances of getting the nomination.
The most recent gaffe I can think of that also have real tangible effect from an election happened last fall when Democratic candidate Terry McAuliffe said this in the Virginia gubernatorial debate.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TERRY MCAULIFFE (D-VA), GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: I`m not going to let parents come into schools and actually take votes out and make their own decision. So, yes, stop the bill that I don`t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Now, McAuliffe was absolutely right. You can`t have every individual parent controlling a veto over all public school curriculum. It doesn`t work that way. Curricula are produced by experts in concert with public input, democratic involvement and supervision. That clip though absolutely hurt McAuliffe with parents. He ended up losing the governor`s race to Republican Glenn Youngkin by just two points.
Well, tonight, there`s something that should be a way bigger gaffe than that. And it comes from a politician who also is in one of the most hotly contested Senate races this year in a purple state that Joe Biden won in 2020.
On Tuesday, Republican Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin told the local news station he supports a reduction in unemployment benefits. And while he`s explaining why he does not think the government should help families find childcare, he said this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. RON JOHNSON (R-WI): People decide to have families and become parents. That`s something, you know, they need to consider when they make that choice. I`ve never really felt it was society`s responsibility to take care of other people`s children.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Now, Ron Johnson says all sorts of crazy stuff. We`ll have more soon about his vaccine comments. But coming out against the children of other people, this is something he`s rock solid on.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHNSON: Parents are responsible for their children. And I really don`t want government gaining greater control over families. That`s -- I mean, it`s pretty basic. I don`t see anything controversial about that. We`re $29 trillion in debt. The last thing we should be talking about is having government spend more money.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Not a mistake. An honest articulation of Ron Johnson`s views. If you have a kid, it`s your own fault. Just deal with it.
[20:50:01]
And every parent in Wisconsin across lines of race and class who is struggling with the difficulties of this pandemic, juggling everything, know that the message of your Republican Senator Ron Johnson who is up for reelection November is you are on your own. So, suck it up buttercup.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HAYES: I think there was a time in modern American life that an accusation that a politician engaged in sexual acts of the minor would have been enough to end the career. Nevermind if there were accusations of payments for it.
Well, Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz is proving that time has passed. Gaetz, the three-term Congressman representing Florida`s first congressional district is facing accusations of having sex with a 17-year- old girl and obstructing an investigation into that allegation.
His from a friend and associate Joel Greenberg pleaded guilty to six charges including sex trafficking of a minor. Gaetz insists the accusations are false, and thus far he has not charged. The developments in the case have not stopped.
Two weeks ago, NBC News reporter Marc Caputo broke the news that Gaetz`s ex-girlfriend gave testimony to the federal grand jury investigating the congressman. Just a few days ago, another man involved with Greenberg has pleaded guilty to unrelated charges. He has reportedly reached cooperation agreement with authorities raising more questions about the investigation into Gaetz himself.
NBC News digital national news correspondent Marc Caputo has been reporting on the investigation. Marc, welcome. I want to read the first paragraph from your report on January 12. Congressman Matt Gaetz`s ex-girlfriend testified Wednesday before a federal grand jury investigating him for sex crimes. A major development suggest that the Department of Justice may be moving closer to indicting him. That was two weeks ago. What are the updates so far as we know them?
[20:55:48]
MARC CAPUTO, NBC NEWS DIGITAL NATIONAL NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Well, I think as you pointed out, The Daily Beast had first reported that Joe Ellicott, a.k.a. Big Joe, as he was known, is cooperating with the federal government. Now, contrary to the Daily Beast report, he really wasn`t a member of Matt Gaetz`s inner circle.
Gaetz, according to friends, those who knew them when he would hang out with Joel Greenberg, would hang out with Joel Greenberg, not this guy Big Joe or Joe Ellicott who was just a kind of a large man. He was a sidekick of Joel Greenberg before Joel Greenberg was elected Seminole County Tax Collector in Florida.
He was the kind of guy who had so much money from his parents. He didn`t have a job that he bought local a.m. radio time. And he had a sidekick, roommate, and pal along and it was the Joel Greenberg show with Big Joe. That was kind of how they advertise themselves and how they spent their time.
Greenberg kind of parlayed that then into this run for what seems to most people pretty obscure office, tax collector, and then everything went off the rails.
HAYES: So, here`s the thing that I find fascinating about this story. I mean, Matt Gaetz has not been charged. He denies the allegations. But you know, I`ve covered political scandals like in Chicago. Like, sex with a minor is a big deal. It`s a big, big deal. It`s a horrible thing, just as an ethical matter. And in politics, when accused of doing that, tends to be a pretty big scandal.
And I just can`t like I can`t tell if it`s like the Trump rules or people are waiting for legal shoe to drop, but it seems -- it seems remarkably undisturbed in his political life for a person who has an allegation of again, sex with a legal child.
HAYES: Well, you know, I guess, in a light most favorable to him, I`m not saying that what you should do but, you know, he says he`s not guilty. And so far, he hasn`t been charged. I mean, he`s been under investigation for this since at least mid-December of 2020. That`s when the Feds jumped out of the blue and snatched his phone from him.
They also snatched the phone of his ex-girlfriend who was referenced at the top of the segment and who is probably really one of the key witnesses in this case. You know, the three likely key witnesses here are the alleged victim, Joel Greenberg, and this ex-girlfriend.
Greenberg has major credibility problems. He`s without a doubt -- he was a one man crime spree in Florida. I mean, he only pleaded guilty to six counts, but he was charged with 33. Incidentally, it`s still the same mandatory minimum sentence of 12 years. And he`s trying to do everything possible, including leaking lots of stuff, to kind of pressure prosecutors, show the judge he`s cooperating to get time shaved off of a sentence.
So, he`s got problems. The witness will have to see or the alleged victim. The ex-girlfriend probably has the most credibility of the bunch. And that`s where she`s sort of key. This character Big Joe or Joe Ellicott, you know, he, he had sort of a sinecure in Joel Greenberg`s office as a tax collector. He had absolutely no experience in the field. He was paid $97,000 a year.
And then in 2019, he sexually harassed an employee in the tax collector`s office. Among the many disgusting things he said, he talked about how he liked to go to strip clubs and pick up women who were desperate and needed money. Now, that was probably the most printable thing I can say on air from that. That was settled quietly for $40,000 at the time in 2019.
So, it just kind of gives you an idea of the caliber of these people. That having been said, if enough witnesses have come forward and wind up on the stand, even though they might have credibility problems, even though they might be under pressure, like testify or we`re going to charge you with a crime, the reality is that, ultimately, it`s going to be for a jury decide if there`s an indictment. And the question is, will the jury believe what they hear?
We`re going to have to wait and see to see if A, there`s indictment and obviously B, see how the government presents its case and Gaetz presents his defense.
HAYES: Yes, I guess that`s -- I mean, that`s all true legally. I just -- having covered political scandals, it`s not always the standard of a courtroom or an indictment that is what creates a political problem for someone. Those tend to be very different standards in terms of like I have a political problem on my hand. And everything you said about the legal standard is 100 percent true and important and he denies the allegation, but like, a lot of times that`s not enough for someone politically.
Matt Gaetz seems to be riding this out. He`s in a very safe district, so we`ll see what happens. But so far, he seems like he`s sitting time. Marc Caputo, thanks so much.
CAPUTO: Thank you much.
HAYES: That is ALL IN on this Thursday night. "THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW" starts right now. Good evening, Rachel.