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

Transcript: All In with Chris Hayes, 10/26/21

Guests: David Dayen, Elana Schor, Sheldon Whitehouse, Scott MacFarlane, Elizabeth Dwoskin

Summary

A Republican congressman from Texas named Troy Nehls gave an interview to a right-wing outlet accusing the U.S. Capitol Police of murder. One person they weren`t able to interview is Jeffrey Clark, who figures very prominently in that report, and who appears is going to sit down for an under oath or at least questioning. Judge Amy Berman Jackson ordered Sibick be released before his trial, citing concerns about a toxic environment among imprisoned January 6th defendants. One theme that seems to be emerging the thousands of internal Facebook documents leaked by a whistleblower is that given the option between doing the best thing for the company`s bottom line, particularly and doing the best thing for its users or society, Facebook chooses the best thing for the company every single time.

Transcript

JOY REID, MSNBC HOST: Do you know what`s the absolute worst? Running out of time, but I promise you we`ll do the absolute worst tomorrow night, so be sure to tune in. That is "THE REIDOUT".

ALL IN with Chris Hayes starts now.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[20:00:20]

CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST (voice over): Tonight on ALL IN, a congressman goes from battling the mob to apologizing for it with a new defense of Ashli Babbitt.

GREG KELLY, NEWSMAX HOST: How could that shooting be justified?

REP. TROY NEHLS (R-TX): No. Greg, it was murder.

HAYES: Tonight, a new look at how brutal the attack was. And as the January 6 committee precedes, new concerns the Department of Justice, letting the coup plotters get away.

Then, more fallout from the Facebook papers, why Mark Zuckerberg killed Spanish-language voter registration tools, because he didn`t want to appear partisan.

And as the Build Back Better negotiations reached end stages, why paid parental leave is a no brainer that even Joe Manchin can get behind.

And ALL IN starts right now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES (on camera): Good evening from New York. I`m Chris Hayes.

A Republican congressman from Texas named Troy Nehls, gave an interview to a right-wing outlet accusing the U.S. Capitol Police of murder, happened yesterday. He was asked about the shooting of Ashli Babbitt, of course, the 35-year-old rioter who was killed on January 6 as she was trying to jump through a door leading to the House Chamber.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KELLY: How could that shooting be justified? Is there any way to justify that?

NEHLS: No. Greg, it was murder. I`ve been a law man for 30 years. I`ve had -- when I was a sheriff, I had deputy shoot and kill suspects. I`ve had deputy shot. I had blue on blue incidents where one of my deputies ended up shooting another deputy, killed him.

The point is I understand a little bit about use of force. I understand a little bit about grand juries. This shooting should have at least gone to a grand jury. But the Department of Justice had no intent to do a thorough investigation.

The shooting took place January 6th, by April already, they said no charges. We`re not going to pursue charges against Lt. Byrd. The video was quite clear, it was murder.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: There`s a lot to unpack there. First of all, we have often covered police shootings of civilians on the show as you probably know, if you watch the show.

Personally, I had no illusions about the fact that they are unjustified sometimes. Absolutely, there have been many cases on justified police shootings that we`ve covered.

But the context of this tragic shooting and killing of Ashli Babbitt is quite clear. Events of January 6 are on video. We continue in fact get more and more footage showing the violence. Like this new clip used in court today. You can see members of the mob spitting and spraying chemical irritants at officers.

We also have the moments of course leading up to the shooting of Ashli Babbitt on tape showing a riotous violent mob pounding on the doors leading to the Speaker`s Lobby just outside the House Chamber where again, where officers were evacuating members of Congress and the rioters screamed to the officers and then they smashed in the windows and the doors with no police in that line right there.

When Ashli Babbitt climbs through one of those broken windows, a Capitol police officer protecting the members of Congress standing behind him, warns her and then fires one shot.

Department of Justice conducted a three-month investigation and found no evidence of wrongdoing by the officer. But it sort of calls his grown up around Ashli Babbitt, cultivated by elements in the right and Donald Trump himself who recently recorded a video marking what would have been her birthday.

She has become a kind of political martyr for the cause of the insurrection. And Congressman Troy Nehls has joined that cult.

But what makes it even stranger and more troubling in terms of what it means about the trajectory of the political right is that this is a real change in tone.

On January 6th, that same congressman who, you know, was a sheriff as he said, Congressman Nehls, his fourth day in office, he was one of those folks that helped barricade the door to the House Chamber against members of the Trump mob who were trying to break in.

You can see him in those photos. He`s in the blue shirt along with fellow Congressman Andrew Clyde of Georgia who would of course go on to apparently forget this whole experience holding back the angry mob and compare the rioters to tourists.

Congressman Nehls, who was a sheriff in Texas spent 30 years in law enforcement tweeted on the afternoon of January 6th: "I was proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with Capitol police barricading the entrance to our sacred House Chamber, while trying to calm the situation talking to protesters. What I`m witnessing is disgrace. We`re better than this. Violence is never the answer. Law and order."

That`s interesting, law and order. That phrase, powerful one, meaningful one to this law man.

Those images of him helping to protect his fellow members were featured on the front page of dozens of newspapers the next morning from The Washington Post, The Tennessean and the Detroit Free Press, he`s there. That`s him in the blue shirt.

[20:06:07]

HAYES: He was in fact hailed as one of the heroes of that day putting himself in the line there. One of the local news stations even aired a report highlighting the Congressman`s actions featuring the interview he gave while the insurrection was still going on.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NEHLS: I said, well, you can go out there and protest, but you can do it peacefully. To try to get in there and not use violence. Violence, that`s not the answer. That`s not the answer.

We as Americans need to be able to have a civil conversation with each other, civilly. Sit across from a table from each other and have dialogue and meaningful conversation. But it just seems like we can`t do that anymore.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: The following week, that same Congressman Troy Nehls, the guy who tweeted law and order, he told political reporter Olivia Beavers, he thought officers would have been justified in shooting more people if they made it through the door he was helping to hold.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NEHLS: The guards are saying, stop banging on that. Don`t come through that door. We will shoot you. And I felt that it would have been totally justified in doing so. Thank goodness they didn`t have to.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: That, of course, that situation he`s describing a barricaded door and saying don`t come in, we will shoot you. That is precisely the situation that the officer found himself in with Ashli Babbitt, exactly the same.

For months after the insurrection, Congressman Nehls remain more or less on this track. In April, he approached President Joe Biden after his joint address to Congress, asked to help with criminal justice reform.

The next month, he and Democratic Congresswoman Val Demings of Florida introduced a bipartisan bill.

In July, Nehls was actually selected as one of the five Republicans to join a special bipartisan panel to investigate January 6.

Now, you might remember, Speaker Nancy Pelosi vetoed two of those Republicans Jim Banks of Indiana and Jim Jordan of Ohio, but not Congressman Nehls.

Of course, the whole thing fell apart when Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy pulled all of his nominations.

But again, Nehls was not in the crazy category. He was not in the category of Republican members of Congress like Jim Jordan and Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Greene, and yet here he is now.

On this far right station, contributing to the martyrdom of Ashli Babbitt, who lost her life by accusing the Capitol police of murder for firing a gun under the conditions he explicitly said were justified.

Congressman Troy Nehls has gotten from literally battling the mob to being an apologist for it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KELLY: How could that shooting be justified? Is there any way to justify that?

NEHLS: No. Greg, it was murder.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: There is no straddling the line between supporting insurrection and supporting democracy. No middle ground there. Day by day, one by one, Republicans all fall in line. They move from the democracy camp to the insurrection camp under the exhaustible pressure of political expedience, or genuine personal radicalization, and it`s hard to say which is worse.

Elana Schor is a Congress Editor for Politico where she oversees coverage of this Republican faction and she joins me now.

Elana, I find Nehls an interesting figure because he`s a freshman rep. He was lauded for his -- what he did that day and he was not -- he has not made a name for himself in the caucus in the way that say, Lauren Boebert, or Marjorie Taylor Greene have sought to and yet here he is saying this wildly inflammatory thing quite casually, in fact.

ELANA SCHOR, CONGRESS EDITOR, POLITICO: Sure, and it`s important to note that Democrats were fine with Troy Nehls because of his law enforcement background during the early days of the January 6 commission debate that turned into the select panel. But they thought he might be a welcome presence given his expertise. But clearly, there`s a shift going on in the conference and he is (INAUDIBLE).

HAYES: Well, tell me more about that shift. I mean, it seems to me the further we get from that date, the more -- the more the narrative and the consensus view among Republicans who were shocked on that day changes about how they conceive of it politically.

SCHOR: For sure, I mean, Olivia herself actually did a great story just today about Nancy Mace, who`s a great example of a freshman member who flipped a blue district, who`s swinging back and forth, kind of like a human pendulum is what some of her colleagues described her as to Olivia, because it is a matter of political expedience, as frankly, Donald Trump remains the de facto leader of the Republican Party.

And you know, Chris, when you saw regional independent commission turn into a democratic led select panel, the political impetus for a lot of these Republican started to cut against investigating January 6, against some of the things that maybe Congressman Nehls have been productive and really might have been a participant in, it`s a slow shift, but it`s a shift.

HAYES: I wonder where you think the -- so that there`s look, there`s the folks that have been in Congress for a long time and then there are these members that have chosen to kind of make a name for themselves in a very specific way. You know, Lauren Boebert, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Madison Cawthorn, Matt Gaetz, all those folks.

[20:10:09]

HAYES: Were -- how would you describe this sort of faction that Troy Nehls as part of? Nancy Mace is another though, she`s a little different in terms of a Republican Party that are -- that are attuned intensely to precisely the political dynamics that you`re indicating. They`re not -- you know, they haven`t been there for 25 26 years, where they`ve got these sort of independent bases of support, have not sort of chosen to make their name.

I wonder if they`re looking at the Marjorie Taylor Greene and Matt Gaetz is and seeing some upside there in pursuing that way of being a member of Congress.

SCHOR: Quite possibly. I mean, certainly, Congressman Nehls doing this on Newsmax is meaningful, right? This is essentially having replaced (AUDIO GAP) as you know, the T.V. channel that the Trump base tunes into most often, right? So, he`s speaking directly to that kind of voter here and that`s important.

You know, but you put up on the screens some of the comments that were made to Olivia, and you know, this is a particularly interesting cross section of the Republican conference, because it includes Markwayne Mullin, it includes Congressman Gonzalez, it includes frankly all those guys guarding that door.

And you mentioned Congressman Clyde, who was the first to epitomize this shift by likening them to tourists. I mean, these are literally the men guarding the door.

So, I would sort of put them in their own camp, because quite a few of them have had law enforcement experience. Markwayne Mullin himself worked in intelligence. And they`ve leaned on that at times to make somewhat even- handed judgments, but not lately, obviously.

HAYES: Yes, and Gonzalez is an interesting case, too, because he was sort of viewed I think, as a kind of up and coming star who quite famously he says that he`s basically bowing out not running for reelection. The reason he isn`t, is because, you know, he landed in an airport with his wife and kids that had to be escorted by police because he -- you know, because of threats from MAGA supporters and he was in that same little cadre of folks at that door.

SCHOR: Yes, he was. And, you know, he obviously has felt more free to be anti-Trump in public, but also you see what it`s -- what it`s done to his political trajectory in the conference.

So, you know, this group of guys guiding -- guarding that door have really kind of split and gone to different paths here. And it`s clear that Andrew and Mullin are on one, right, and Gonzales is on another.

HAYES: Well, it illustrates very neatly the point on the end of the model out there, which is hard to straddle that it`s hard to be in the middle there. I mean, and you`ve seen now with, you know, with Nehls and Clyde choosing their routing Gonzales`s route that it`s very hard to stay in the middle of those two opposing forces.

Elana Schor, thank you so much for joining us tonight.

SCHOR: Thank you.

HAYES: I want to bring in Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a democratic Rhode Island member of the Judiciary Committee, which is investigating events from January 6, and released a blockbuster report of their preliminary findings earlier this month.

Senator, there`s a somewhat similar trajectory to me happening over on the Senate side, particularly with Chuck Grassley on your committee who, you know, I think in a somewhats -- well, it wasn`t quite -- what he did wasn`t quite as inflammatory I think as what Congressman Nehls did.

But the minority of report he released in opposition to what the Senate Judiciary Committee report released about what they found that was happening in the Department of Justice and Donald Trump`s sort of rattling the cage to overturn the election was, you know, it was essentially a kind of apologia, MAGA apology authored by Chuck Grassley and I -- that really stuck out to me about where he`s at politically right now.

SEN. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE (D-RI): Yes, well, the Judiciary Committee, Republican committee staff in particular have been extremely, extremely political, all the way back to, you know, carrying the Kavanaugh nomination through.

So, as staff behavior, this is kind of what we`ve come to expect. I still have high regard for Grassley and as an individual, I think he really regrets what took place.

But at the end of the day, it`s his staff and they should have done better.

HAYES: What is the status of what the Senate Judiciary Committee is looking at? I know obviously, they`ve actually done quite a few interviews. One person they weren`t able to interview is Jeffrey Clark, who figures very prominently in that -- in that report, and who appears is going to sit down for an under oath or at least questioning. I don`t know if it`s under oath with the January 6 committee this week. How important is Clark in all of this?

WHITEHOUSE: I think he`s very important in all of this. As your viewers might recall, he was the head of the Environment Natural Resources section at the Department of Justice, which meant in the Trump Department of Justice, that it was his job to sit there and do nothing.

And as everybody was clearing out at the end of the Trump administration, there was a vacancy in chief of the civil division that he moved up into as acting. And from that position, he cooked up this scheme, that the Department of Justice would intervene in the Georgia election, and encouraged the state of Georgia to overturn the results in Georgia and worked with folks in and around the Trump White House to try to cook that idea up, even if it required a little coup d`etat in the Department of Justice, with him throwing out the acting attorney general.

Now, thankfully, cooler heads prevailed, even among people who`ve gone along with a lot from Trump. And both Trump`s own legal team and the White House leadership said we`ll have mass resignations if you do this. Don`t you dare.

But he knows a lot about what went on. He knows whoever gave him the material to write the report that he proposed to the acting attorney general. He knows who he had conversations with. And he made a very quick hop to a dark money organization, and who all was behind that and what the side deals were. He`s got a lot that we would like to know.

Unfortunately, we have no subpoena power in the Senate Judiciary Committee when it`s 50-50. But thank goodness, the January 6 commission is pursuing this.

HAYES: My understanding is Merrick Garland appears before your committee tomorrow. And there`s a number of issues obviously circulating over the Department of Justice and the attorney general. And there`s two I wanted to ask you about -- and I say this stipulating that the attorney general should be independent on questions of criminal prosecution and should follow the facts and laws they`ve often stated.

But there`s, of course, the referral from the house to the U.S. Attorney`s Office and District of Columbia about Steve Bannon is contempt, the fact that he`s sort of flagrantly violated that subpoena.

And also, a broader question about whether the Department of Justice is doing enough to investigate the president in his circle for the event of January 6, where are you on both of those issues?

WHITEHOUSE: I think that they are both very legitimate questions. The Bannon question gets a little bit close, if the questions are going to involve conversations between him when he worked for the president and President Trump.

But it looks like they`re trying to cover up conversations that Bannon had with other people, not President Trump that have no colorable claim to executive privilege under any theory that anybody`s ever articulated in any courtroom.

So, there should be a way for the Department of Justice to come forward with an answer pretty quickly. That says, OK, here are the things where there`s a legitimate question. And as to the rest, were prosecuting if you don`t turn up.

With respect to the January 6 investigation, the question is, does it stay an investigation mostly if the mopes and dopes who showed up? Is it really just kind of a glorified trespassing investigation? Or are they going to look really hard at the people behind it? The people who funded it, the people who coordinated it, the people who are in that Willard Hotel command room, and the members of Congress who may have participated in that effort.

And that`s the part that`s most interesting to me, if members of Congress were deliberately holding the proceedings up with their objections, so they could keep a time window open, that would allow the mob outside to break in and disrupt. And that was part of the plan. That`s something that needs investigation.

HAYES: Do you have reason to believe that`s the case?

WHITEHOUSE: There`s considerable evidence that a number of House members at least we`re in very close coordination with people who are in that Willard Hotel command center.

So yes, there`s what a prosecutor would call predication exists to pursue those questions.

HAYES: All right, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will be hearing testimony from the attorney general tomorrow. Thank you so much.

WHITEHOUSE: Thank you, Chris.

HAYES: Another big day in court for Daniel -- Donald Trump`s January 6 foot soldiers, including this guy caught on camera, allegedly assaulting Officer Michael Fanone and stealing his badge, which was eventually recovered after being buried in his back yard.

Today, a judge said that man could be released from jail. You won`t believe why, that`s next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:23:04]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL FANONE, OFFICE, METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT: At some point during the fighting, I was dragged from the line of officers and into the crowd. I heard someone`s scream, I got one.

As I was swarmed by a violent mob, they ripped off my badge, they grabbed and stripped me of my radio. They seized ammunition that was secure to my body. They began to beat me with their fists and with what felt like hard metal objects.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: One of the insurrectionists accused of assaulting D.C. police officer Michael Fanone and stealing his badge and radio is this man Thomas Sibick of Buffalo New York seen here holding a Capitol Police shield during the attack.

Footage from Officer Fanone`s body cam released by the Department of Justice appears to show Sibick grabbing Fanone`s badge and radio as he is swarmed by the crowd. DOJ even added these arrows to point out what he was doing.

When he was pressed by the FBI, Sibick admitted to burying officer Fanone`s badge in his backyard, Sibick faces multiple felony charges in connection with the attack. He has pleaded not guilty and has been held in a D.C. jail since his arrest in March.

Earlier this month, he wrote a letter to the judge overseeing his case saying he now loathes Donald Trump adding "January 6, the disgrace to our nation that left a scar Trump is ultimately responsible for".

Today, Judge Amy Berman Jackson ordered Sibick be released before his trial, citing concerns about a toxic environment among imprisoned January 6th defendants. Sibick will be turned over to the custody of his parents who were ordered by the judge to limited social media use and cable news viewing, even MSNBC.

Scott MacFarlane has been following closely following the Sibick case and the other January 6th cases. An investigative reporter for NBC for Washington, and he joins me now.

Scott, what can you tell us about Mr. Sibick?

SCOTT MACFARLANE, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER, NBC4 WASHINGTON: Well, he was one of what`s now 45 January 6th defendants in pretrial detention in the Washington D.C. jail. That`s a small percentage of the 630 plus federal defendants. But these are the inmates the defendants facing the most serious accusations, the most violent accusations, or simply the highest profile accusations.

Thomas Sibick is a unique case accused of stealing the radio and badge from D.C. Officer Fanone. Thomas Sibick has made several requests to get out of jail, pretrial.

Among the things he argues is that the D.C. jail itself is particularly inhospitable to him and to others. His defense lawyer Chris says he volunteered. Sibick volunteer to go into the hole, to go into solitary, to get away from the other January 6th defendants.

In the D.C. jail, they have a separate wing for the January 6th defendants. The inmates call it the patriot wing, it`s known more informally as the J6 wing. And the defense lawyer today Chris, said it`s cult like in there and toxic.

HAYES: Oh, this is fascinating. So, he wants to get away from that wing because he has broken ideologically with those individuals is the point that his defense lawyer is saying?

MACFARLANE: In one of the previous filings, Chris, his defense lawyer says Sibick`s been accused of cozying up to the correctional officers by the other inmates. And there was one anecdote shared today, his defense lawyer says one time when the lawyer was on the phone with Sibick, the group in the January 6 wing began singing the national anthem. And that Sibick felt pressure to go join them. That`s when the lawyer said it was cult like.

But this is not small, this is an increasing issue. Judges are increasingly concerned about the conditions inside the D.C. jail, the separation, the segregation of the January 6 defendants and overall, the medical care being offered.

I got to tell you, Chris, I`ve been in this town a long time, there have been generations of concerns about the D.C. jail. And I get no small number of e-mails from people saying, why is it now suddenly a thing now that January 6 defendants are complaining?

HAYES: Yes, in my experience as a reporter has not been that jail has been great for anyone, basically, who has been accused of a crime or has made them put them in a better state of mind generally, I would say.

What was the judges` implication to not watch cable news to his parents that she was releasing him in custody to?

MACFARLANE: It was interesting, the judge was told by defense lawyers that Sibick`s mom and dad had different political views. And that her solution was a turn off politics, don`t get on social media, don`t watch cable T.V., don`t elicit this political passion that allegedly brought you to Washington D.C. on January 6th, that`s come up before in other cases, but the judge was unequivocal about that today.

HAYES: What was Sibick doing before he came to Washington? How did he end up joining the insurrection?

MACFARLANE: We heard his whole backstory from his defense lawyer from his school age lacrosse days to his work at the league in the medical field. And the defense is trying to make the argument, he is a good citizen who has disavowed Donald Trump and the false election statements.

In fact, in one of his court motions, Sibick`s defense lawyer calls Donald Trump`s words false and conspiratorial and try to indicate that Sibick has distanced himself from that. We`ve seen a number of defendants try that with mixed results.

HAYES: Final question for you is, why did the bat -- why did he take the badge and why did he bury it? Have we had any further indication from either his attorney or himself what was going on through his head? I mean, he assaulted Fanone but that`s just seems like was it a trophy? Was it a kind of like souvenir he was grabbing?

MACFARLANE: You see the dirt around the badge, prosecutors argued he buried it in his backyard. His story has changed, according to federal prosecutors, and that`s one of the reasons prosecutors sought to keep him in jail, pretrial. Questioning his ability to follow authorities to tell a straight story.

So, there`s a bit a bit of equivocation on that. I think that`s an important question. But it`s also just a distinctive case. There are cases that are unicorns, Chris, where some defendants are accused of doing things that only they are accused of doing. Thomas Sibick has been one of those from the start.

HAYES: All right, Scott MacFarlane, as always, great, thanks. Thank you so much.

Coming up, new reporting that Mark Zuckerberg acts a plan to provide voting information in Spanish because it would seem partisan. That story in the latest revelations from the Facebook papers, after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:33:40]

HAYES: One theme that seems to be emerging the thousands of internal Facebook documents leaked by a whistleblower is that given the option between doing the best thing for the company`s bottom line, particularly and doing the best thing for its users or society, Facebook chooses the best thing for the company every single time.

The Washington Post reports: "Ahead of the 2020 U.S. election, Facebook built a voting information center that promoted factual information about how to register to vote or sign up to your poll worker. Teams at WhatsApp wanted to create a version of it in Spanish pushing the information proactively through a chat bot or embedded link to millions of marginalized voters who communicate regularly through WhatsApp. But Facebook chairman and CEO Mark Zuckerberg raised objections to the idea saying it was not politically neutral or can make the company appear partisan according to a person familiar with the project who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal matters, as well as documents reviewed by The Post."

A spokeswoman told the post "WhatsApp did not propose pushing information to all users, which is not how WhatsApp works."

Facebook owns WhatsApp. They could have made it easier for millions of Spanish speaking Americans to vote, but they apparently chose not to. And election disinformation among Spanish speaking voters was a -- was a problem in 2020.

Just after the election, the New York Times reported quote, it appeared Facebook and Twitter might have overlooked the deluge of disinformation targeting Spanish speaking Americans. Spanish language accounts with huge followings falsely said that Mr. Trump had secured an early victory, that social media was censoring his win and that Mr. Biden was cheating.

Now, it appears Facebook didn`t just overlook this information. They also decided -- well, Zuckerberg decided against proactively providing the correct information to Spanish speaking Americans.

Elizabeth Dwoskin is part of the Washington Post team that broke the story about Facebook`s decision to ignore Spanish speaking voters. She`s the post Silicon Valley correspondent, and she joins me now.

It`s great to have you on. So, first, tell me what was the source of this? Did it -- were there internal documents that led to this revelation?

ELIZABETH DWOSKIN, SILICON VALLEY CORRESPONDENT, THE WASHINGTON POST: Well, this -- first of all, I should say that Zuckerberg didn`t nix the idea, they actually did launch a smaller version of the idea, a whittle down version of the idea where you could text -- where you could text a chat bot to fact check some stories in Spanish or get information about how to vote.

But what we know is that this move was kind of classic Zuckerberg where people at the company would present ideas, sometimes they would ball up to the CEO. And increasingly, and this is what we see also in the Haugen documents is there would be these objections around free speech.

Now, increasingly, in recent years, as Mark Zuckerberg has become more isolated, he`s also taken on more hardline positions about free speech.

You might remember a couple years ago, he was defending the rights of Holocaust deniers to spread conspiracy theories. And you`d see that time and time again in the kind of countless micro decisions that bubbled up to him that we don`t know about where he would raise these objections for free speech, though sometimes he would we found out also override his own free speech principles in the name of growth, which is what he did to get into Vietnam, where he agreed to the government censoring activists and critics of the government in order to be in that country as a condition of being there.

HAYES: What was the impetus for the folks that were inside the WhatsApp team to try to create this sort of proactive voter information bot inside WhatsApp?

DWOSKIN: I think it was just part of a slew of measures, you know, that everybody -- you know, the company spent two years preparing for the 2020 election, as somebody told me, they didn`t want Facebook to be the story.

So, I think this was just one of many measures that -- was that people were trying to propose to be proactive and not -- and mitigate the harms of the platform. They knew there was misinformation all over the platform, that`s very clear from all the documents that we`ve seen.

And so, I think that they -- it was just an initiative to try to mitigate those problems. But like many initiatives at the company, it`s sort of like the leadership, it would, the leadership would have a really hard time with it if it came up against that line of free speech they were constantly obsessed with, in general.

Zuckerberg himself was very concerned. I heard about the term internally, it was called false positives, which does not have to do with disease. It has to do with Facebook -- it`s Facebook`s internal term, when they take down content that they shouldn`t have taken down. That was legitimate content, but they took it down by mistake.

He and the leadership were obsessed with false positives. They were obsessed with getting it wrong. And because of that, they didn`t always take measures, they were reluctant to take measures that would mitigate harm.

HAYES: But this -- I mean, what`s striking here is that this is -- he`s making a calculation about perception in the political landscape, which is also a correct calculation.

Which is to say, if Facebook were to proactively in Spanish say to folks, hey, here`s where you can register to vote, conservatives would attack them for being partisan.

But part of -- part of what I see here is internalizing a certain kind of right wing critique as opposed to thinking about is it independently the case that it is partisan to tell people in the language that they may speak where to vote? It`s not.

We saw in Miami-Dade County, we saw in the Rio Grande Valley, there`s lots of people who speaks Spanish who voted for Donald Trump. And yet you can see, at least in his justification, this concern about public conservative critique and perception.

DWOSKIN: And I think that permeated through the entire company during the Trump years. They were absolutely terrified of the wrath of conservatives.

A human (PH) Zuckerberg created a personal relationship with Jared Kushner, essentially to try to mitigate some of that and it still made them the punching bag of the right.

And what happened is that the way those decisions, the way that that wrath trickled down in the company was that conservatives and Republicans held big sway within the company. And as we saw time and time again in the documents, they were able to have their -- have their -- those outlets -- right leaning outlets were less subject to fact checking. Right wing publishers were less subjected to fact checking. Right wing politicians were also more exempt from their rules. It was essentially a double standard that was often created.

[20:40:00]

DWOSKIN: But in the case of the voting, they did actually put voting -- their main voting information center, I believe was in Spanish. But again, what ultimately happened on WhatsApp is my understanding it`s a more whittled down version of what was proposed.

HAYES: All right, Elizabeth Dwoskin has been reporting on those Facebook files for The Washington Post. Thanks a lot.

DWOSKIN: Thanks.

HAYES: Ahead in trying to make a deal on the president`s Build Back Better plans. Will Democrats sacrifice paid family leave while the U.S. has failed to figure out what nearly every other country in the world has managed to accomplish, after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: Great news tonight, the FDA advisory body voted near unanimously to approve a lower dose Pfizer coronavirus vaccine for kids ages five to 11.

With this vote, the FDA is expected to make a final ruling within a few days as the CDC and its advisory panel are set to vote and rule next week. And the 28 million or so kids in this age group could start getting shots immediately after that.

[20:45:02]

HAYES: Got to say, that it`s news that parents like me have been waiting for.

Speaking of parenthood, my oldest Ryan was born 10 years ago, 2011, (INAUDIBLE) turned 10. It was just 2-1/2 months after I started my first show, the weekend show here on MSNBC. And I took like a few days off and was back at work that very week. And not taking more time for her birth is one of the huge regrets in my life seriously, I still think about it.

But that is basically the culture in the United States, we largely do not have paternal leave. I mean, we barely even have maternal leave, particularly not as a national guaranteed benefit.

There are lots of times where people talk about American exceptionalism or country being really great at something or really terrible at something. And oftentimes, those comparisons can be a little misleading. But this is one of those where it`s just completely black and white.

Take a look at this map. The countries that are different shades of that greenish color offer some sort of maternal leave, that is more than four weeks, OK? As like, government policy.

The orange countries offer zero, that makes us one of six countries in the world with no national paid leave, zero. As you can see, just about every other country in the world has figured out how to give at the very least mothers guaranteed paid leave when they have a child, we do not even have that.

A lot of countries that are our economic pure countries like Canada, for instance, have maternal and paternal leave. I know folks who are Canadians and friends in other countries who have taken leave in pairs, the mom will take some time, the father will then take some time, they will take some time together as a new family. This is true throughout a lot of European countries.

Maternal leave in particular is true in countries that are much much poorer than us like Pakistan gives mothers 12 weeks, Vietnam mothers get 26 weeks. In fact, the global average for countries that provide leave for new mothers is 29 weeks.

Again, I`m probably telling you anything you don`t know, all of this has been talked about before. This is not some hot take, some discovery. I`ve talked about it. Lots of my colleagues have talked about it. It`s been talked about across the political aisle.

Why are we here? There`s no reason for it to be political at all. I mean, despite the weird pathetic and very revealing whining by some people about Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg taking parental leave.

I mean, again, even let`s just keep it real, real conservative here (INAUDIBLE). You just limited it to maternal leave as a first step. All of those countries you see on the map, very different politics, very different institutions, different forms of government, they all understand as just the most basic thing in the world that a new mother needs time to take some time to be with her child.

And we`re talking about this because paid family leave is part of the big Biden Build Back Better agenda. Proposal for 12 weeks right now.

Right now, there should be honestly, if you went to the floor tomorrow, 535 votes in the U.S. Congress for 12 weeks of guaranteed maternal leave, just tomorrow. It`s nuts, that`s not the case, but there`s not.

I don`t even know -- I don`t know if there`s even a single public Republican vote for it. Democrats have to go it alone as they have to do on many of these things.

Right now, they`re fighting between a whole bunch of different priorities and have come to a situation where they have paired the paid leave back from 12 weeks to four weeks, and that is now even that teetering on the brink.

It is when you take a step back that you really see this shockingly damning facts that are contrary to our politics, that we are arguing about this and whittling away and negotiating how has the world figured out a way to do this and we have not.

Right now, a major part of this bill that Democrats are fighting over is family leave, and the part that is in danger of getting chopped down next to nothing. So, the question becomes what do we do here about that and the other priorities in the bill? And we`re going to talk about that next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:53:01]

HAYES: One of the difficulties in talking about covering and I think for Democrats messaging President Biden`s Build Back Better plan is that it has a bunch of different domestic priorities, right? There`s all sorts of different things. And it`s a huge part of why communicating around the bill has been so difficult.

So, here`s a useful way to think about it, I think. Writing in an opinion piece, the New York Times David Dayen makes the case that the the conceptual uniting feature of the bill, the big idea behind the bill is to address the holes and the tears in our collective social safety net that were brought to light and exacerbated by a once in generation pandemic. A big disruption.

He writes, "Build Back Better represents an effort to never again make citizens so vulnerable in the next pandemic or an enduring emergency like the climate crisis".

I like that way of thinking about it, it`s a more helpful way to think about why this bill matters and what it`s trying to do when they get up in the constant policy horse trading going on in Congress right now.

David Dayen is executive editor of the progressive analysis magazine, The American Prospect which has been doing great reporting on the bill and his opinion piece on the Times is titled Democrats it`s time to focus on big wins.

Dave, let`s start first on you articulated what I think is the best paragraph length conceptual vision of what the bill is. Tell me how you see it when someone says, wait, what is this bill? What unifies the various features of it?

DAVID DAYEN, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, THE AMERICAN PROSPECT: Well, yes, I mean, I kind of stumbled upon it in writing this, frankly, is that -- I mean, the idea is to Build Back Better. What are we building back from?

Well, there were all these tears. And as you mentioned, in our society that were really highlighted by the pandemic, we didn`t have childcare when the schools shut down, we didn`t have shelter for a lot of people when there was a shelter in place order. When people lost jobs, they lost their health insurance, we didn`t have sick leave when workers were falling ill with COVID, we didn`t have at home care when nursing homes were like a deathtrap.

[20:55:02]

DAYEN: And for many people, they don`t even have $400 to cover emergency expenses when there`s an emergency, like there was in the pandemic.

And so, the idea is to take those things and improve the ability for people to manage a crisis. And I think -- I think that`s a good conceptual way to think of it.

HAYES: Yes, I do too. And I think so one of the ways to think about the social safety net parts of it, there`s a climate aspect too, although that relates to -- that relates to this as well, right? Because we will face increasingly severe climate disruption in the absence of aggressive action.

So, you`ve got this proposal that originally came out of the budget committee with Senator Bernie Sanders, $3.5 trillion. Manchin and Sinema have balked at that, they`ve been paring it down.

So, there`s been this question about how to get the bill to a level in spending that Joe Manchin will give a thumbs up to, and there`s two ways to go.

One is to take all those various programs and pair each of them back in different ways, oh, this one will you`ll have to have an income qualification, this one will only have for a year or two.

The other way is choose two or three, or four or whatever, and do those big and permanent and you`re making the argument for the latter, why?

DAYEN: Because half measures are not going to be seen by the public as a way that government is restoring its capability to function in their interests.

When you look at what the paid leave program, for example is offering, it used to be under the Family Act, which was Kirsten Gillibrand`s bill for this, a public program that was paid through a little bit of payroll tax, and you just access it and draw down those dates when you needed them.

Now, it`s being managed in a hybrid system. There`s some private insurance companies involved and it kind of operates like the health insurance system, and it`s just a recipe for endless hassle, endless frustration when you try to take time off. And I don`t think the purpose of public policy should be to anger people and frustrate people.

HAYES: Yes, you say this about the -- you say this about the sort of specific program designed right now to use the benefit, workers must learn whether their employer or their state offers paid leave or whether they`re eligible for federal assistance, then apply with the proper entity, turning in some combination pay stubs, tax information, and work history evidence to comply with numerous eligibility requirements.

Now, we`ve all been through like the hassleacracy (PH) of American health insurance particularly and look, some kind of -- look, there`s some sort of bureaucratic, you know, mechanics that are going to be somewhat unavoidable in public programs. I mean, even in countries that administer them well, so we should be clear about that.

But your point is, you think that in trying to get this half measure, you`re not sure it`s worth keeping in either, you choose to do it or not.

DAYEN: Yes, and you know who agrees with me is Joe Manchin because the one program that he has said I don`t need income limits, I don`t need to cap, it can be universal is pre-kindergarten. Now, why did he say that the pre- kindergarten bill is OK for a universal coverage? It`s because he implemented it in West Virginia when he was governor. And he realized that yes, if you let everybody in, it`s very popular and successful.

And I just feel like Democrats cannot over and over again make big promises and fail to deliver them. It just toxifies the brand of Democrats. And I think it`s far preferable to find those programs that the broad, you know, elements of the caucus find amenable and do them universally. Do them simply as simply as humanly possible and do them well, and then say to the electorate, we accomplished this for you, we delivered this for you and, you know, sign up with us again, and we`ll do it and we`ll get some more.

HAYES: I mean, the children`s tax credit is an example of that. I think in the American Rescue Plan, I think you would agree with that, right? Straightforward, simple. Those checks are already going out. There`s some folks -- well, right, there are some eligibility issues with folks that don`t file tax returns. But that has been -- that has been continued over to another year. And that I think a lot of people think as a model, but then at the same time, it`s not clear when you poll folks how much that`s making a difference in their politics.

DAYEN: I actually have seen some polling that does show a measurable increase in popularity for Joe Biden and the Democratic Party, including from Trump voters, if they have actually received the child tax credit.

You know, a lot of these polls that you see aren`t just for recipient of the beneficiaries. And if you just narrow it to beneficiaries, there was a recent poll that did show a measurable increase in support and I just think that what`s the alternative here, right? It`s just to create the hassleacracy to put a tax on people`s time, and then you know, grind the agenda down into nothing and then say hey, come back, we`ll fic it later.

[21:00:15]

HAYES: Well, we`re going to talk to someone maybe tomorrow who has a different view on this but I appreciate you taking time, Dave, today really, that was great.

That is ALL IN on this Tuesday night. "THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW" starts right now. Good evening, Rachel.