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

Transcript: All In with Chris Hayes, 10/6/21

Guests: Stacey Abrams, Laurence Tribe, Betsy Woodruff Swan, James Dawson, Tom Perriello


Virginia Republican Gubernatorial nominee Glenn Youngkin calls for audit in the state that Joe Biden won by 10 points. Nine months after Donald Trump`s attempt to overthrow democracy, the slow-motion insurrection continues. President Trump`s allies are planning to defy the January 6 Select Committee subpoenas. The governor of Idaho left the state for a border photo op, and while he was gone, the lieutenant governor of Idaho went completely rogue. There`s new polling out for President Biden`s big Build Back Better agenda and it`s showing at 57 percent approval.




DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The insurrection took place on November 3rd. That was the insurrection.

HAYES: Nine months after Donald Trump`s attempt to overthrow democracy, the slow-motion insurrection continues.

GLENN YOUNGKIN (R-VA), GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: So, let`s just audit the voting machines, publish it so everybody can see it.

HAYES: Tonight, new progress from the select committee as Trump aides defy subpoenas. Stacey Abrams on today`s big hearing for voting rights and Laurence Tribe on a threat to democracy no one is talking about.

Then, the unbelievable story of a lieutenant governor undoing public health measures while her governor was out of state for a stunt visit to the border.

And more courage from the Fox News crowd calling out other employers for enforcing vaccine requirements just like Fox News.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don`t think it makes sense for ESPN to be mandating the vaccine for employees.

HAYES: When ALL IN starts right now.


HAYES: Good evening from New York. I`m Chris Hayes. We are fast approaching the second big test of post-Trump electoral politics. The first was the failed California recall election where Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom handily defeated a Trumpian opponent in a deep blue state. We didn`t know what was going to happen but it was a resounding victory.

Well, Virginia holds its gubernatorial election on November 2nd. And while Joe Biden won that state by 10 points last year, polling right now shows a tight race. And Republican candidate Glenn Youngkin is in an interesting position here.

Now, the electoral reality is that in a blue state like Virginia where he`s taking on former Governor Terry McAuliffe, Youngkin needs to flip some Biden voters and Democrats to win. But he also needs to keep that Trump MAGA base fired up enough to turn out for him.

Of course, there really is just one litmus test Donald Trump and his hardcore supporters are interested in. They euphemistically call it election integrity which basically means the opposite. It means how open are you to doing a coup. So, Youngkin is trying to walk a very fine line here.

Now, his position reminds me of Republican governors who aren`t anti- vaccine but are kind of anti-pro-vaccine or anti-vaccine mandate. They`re walking the same line. Glenn Youngkin isn`t necessarily pro-coup but he is at the very least coup-curious. He`s down to clown. He`s picking up what you`re putting down.

Republican politicians from senators Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz to now Glenn Youngkin basically trying to find new ways of, you know, signaling their openness to the authoritarian push by Donald Trump and his acolytes to overthrow an election to plot to overthrow the next one if necessary to invalidate any result that is not a clear victory for their party, and thus successfully overturn liberal democracy.

It sounds crazy when you say it out loud but that`s where we are. Now, to maintain some semblance of legitimacy, all of those folks have tried to find ways to say all that without sounding quite as crassly authoritarian as Donald Trump. So, here`s the Republican candidate for Governor of Virginia Glenn Youngkin yesterday trying to compare audits of free and fair elections to a business audit.


YOUNGKIN: I think we need to make sure that people trust these voting machines. And I just think like I grew up in a world where you have an audit every year. In businesses, you have an audit. So, let`s just audit the voting machines, publish it so everybody can see it.


HAYES: Yes, just audit it. Again, sort of harmless at one level but despite what glossy sheen these politicians might put on their language, it is all the same disingenuous coup stuff. We know where it`s coming from, right? It all points to a supposed distrust in our elections while reinforcing that distrust and then giving it credence. Well, people don`t trust the system ergo -- so they use it to justify further actions to subvert our democracy.

This is going on all over the place. We`ve seen it play out across the country. In states like Georgia and Texas where right-wing governors and legislators use the imaginary threat of election malfeasance and then the sort of meta threat of people`s lack of trust should justify all kinds of draconian election laws that make it harder for people to vote especially in big Democratic cities.


GOV. BRIAN KEMP (R-GA): After the November election last year, I knew, like so many of you, that significant reforms to our state elections were needed. There is no doubt there were many alarming issues with how the election was handled. And those problems understandably led to the crisis of confidence in the ballot box.

GOV. GREG ABBOTT (R-TX): One thing that all Texans can agree and that is that we must have trust and confidence in our elections. The bill that I`m about to sign helps to achieve that goal.


HAYES: See? See what they`re doing there? Trust, faith, oh, there`s an alarming lack of trust. What do we do about it? Now, just to be definitely clear, there was zero evidence of widespread voter fraud in Georgia or Texas or anywhere else for that matter. Of course, Georgia was most famously like the most audited election anywhere. But Republicans and, you know, Donald Trump are lying about it anyway.


And they are doing it because the most prominent voice in their party, Trump, is laser-focused on it as the most important litmus test an elector Republican can face. Just yesterday, in fact, Trump endorsed a primary challenger to Massachusetts Republican Governor Charlie Baker who by the way is massively popular with voters of both parties in his state.

And Baker is a blue state Republican, has said that Joe Biden is the legitimate winner of the 2020 election and he backed Donald Trump`s second impeachment after the January 6 insurrection. So, Trump came out in support of Baker`s challenger citing his support for, you guessed it, election integrity.

In another statement today, Trump was even more explicit writing, "The real insurrection happened on November 3rd, the presidential election, not on January 6 which was the day of protesting the fake election results. Well, protesting and bashing in the heads of cops by the dozen.

Now, again, not every Republicans can say the quiet part out loud like Donald Trump can. They have to be a little more savvy about it. Again, Glenn Youngkin is running in a plus-10 Biden state. He admits Biden won the election, but he still supports the bogus election integrity talking points that are laying the groundwork for another coup attempt.

And Virginia is not the only state where the health of our democracy is on the ballot. The biggest marquee match-ups in next year`s midterm elections are going to be in three crucial Midwestern swing states. Right now, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin are all governed by Democrats while the legislatures are controlled by Republicans. And all three governors seats are on the ballot in 2022.

Now, we used to talk about these three states in terms of the Democrats electoral firewall, right? If they could win Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, their path to 270 electoral votes was pretty secure and thus was their path to the White House.

Hillary Clinton lost all these three so-called blue wall states in 2016 quite famously only for Joe Biden to narrowly flip them back last year. They were key to both Trump and Biden`s electoral victories. They will likely play the same deciding role in 2024, which is why these three states have since taken on a new kind of significance as a new kind of firewall.

Now, the feeling among Democrats is that they need to make sure to hold on to these governorships because if they do not, a Republican governor will enable a coup in 2024. Now, again that sounds hyperbolic but there is real concern about the powerful pro-coup anti-democracy forces in all these states.

And in a presidential election, empowered state Republicans can move to do things like invalidate results to show a Democratic candidate winning. They could have the state step in and nominate an alternate slate of electors for example which we know is exactly what the Trump legal team wanted in 2020, tried to get them all to do.

And there`s real reason to worry. As the New York Times points out today, "A state could send competing slates of electors to Congress. The House might accept one slate, the Senate the other. Then, the Electoral Count Act of 1887 appears to give states governor the tie-breaking vote.

So, if Republicans hold these three state houses, they flip three governorships, they could be in control over who wins again in the three most important swing states in American politics. This is a crazy thing to be worrying about. We have no idea what would happen after that. It would be truly unprecedented. It would probably look like a full-blown constitutional crisis.

That is why as Greg Sargent notes in the Washington Post today Democrats need to push this issue into the front and center of these three races. And the media both local and nati1onal needs to repeatedly hound Republican candidates demanding they renounce any plans to overturn the will of voters in 2024 because Donald Trump`s plan is transparently to succeed where he failed last year.

That`s why he`s so doggedly pursuing elected Republicans will not go along with his big live election fraud and endorsing primary challengers who loudly promulgate it. Should Trump run again in three years, he wants enough states under Republican control. They will be able to tip the election in his favor even if he loses. And he won`t need Mike Pence to hand the presidency to him like he wanted on January 6.

It`s a frankly terrifying scenario outlined a new dystopic piece for the Atlantic titled Kamala Harris might have to stop the steal. And in it, writer Russell Berman argues that January 6 the big lie might just be a preview for the "bloodless coup" that could unfold in Washington should Donald Trump succeed in subverting our democratic norms.

Again, the idea comes back to the states. If the states are under Republican control, they can send a slate of electors to Washington for the Republican candidate no matter who their state actually voted for. And then, Vice President Kamala Harris would have to do the thing that former Vice President Mike Pence refused to do. She would have to refuse to certify those results, those slates of electors. Democrats can find themselves in the terrifyingly real version of the fraudulent events pushed by Trump in 2020, truly a nightmare scenario.


I don`t want to get ahead of ourselves. We have many bridges, many bridges to cross before we get there. But the thing to keep your eyes on when you hear Glenn Youngkin giving aid and comfort to this line of thinking is that Trump and others are working very hard every day to cross those bridges.

Stacey Abrams has become, I think it`s fair to say, the public phase for the fight for voting rights in this country. She`s founder of Fair Fight and Fair Count, two groups dedicated to the expansion of ballot access in Georgia and across the country and she joins me now.

First, let`s start on governors and state electoral systems, their integrity and what it means that you now have palpable worry in certain circles that wayward state officials would essentially collaborate in stealing an election or overturning the will of the voters.

STACEY ABRAMS, FOUNDER, FAIR FIGHT AND FAIR COUNT: I think you are being generous when you say that we have many, many bridges to cross before we get there. We have watched state after state put in place the subversion of our elections. They have done so by saying that you can remove electoral election workers that you can throw out provisional ballots that are from out of precinct. We have seen layer upon layer of attempting to subvert elections starting now as a buildup to what could happen in `24.

And that is why the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Acts are so critical. This is not going to be like a movie where the villain announces his intention and by the end of the movie he has been thwarted. This is a slow-moving but very aggressive and relentless attempt to undermine our democracy using our very laws against us. And we are watching the insurrection play out in every single state capital entertaining these laws, allowing votes to be cast out and allowing the election workers who protect those votes to be denied protection and their right to do their job.

HAYES: The way that Republican leaders -- I mean there`s some who just go all out like Josh Mandel. I just saw a clip of him running for Senate in Ohio saying, you know, the Democrats stole the election or something to that effect. We need a November 3rd commission and stuff like that.

But someone like Youngkin, right? I mean, I want -- how does that phrase about well, everyone has audits. We have to restore trust. Like, how does that hit your ears as someone who`s watched this play out on the ground in Georgia where you know, even the election officials didn`t go along with the "it was stolen," used that kind of language for sort of ulterior purposes.

ABRAMS: It`s a lie. It`s a lie told because it sounds so seductively like the truth that we don`t investigate further. He`s not speaking of an audit. He is speaking of an overturning. An audit evaluates what was done. But usually, what precipitates an audit is either a concern or a practice. And what they are asking for is to throw out the practical practice of how we hold our elections and instead respond to false concerns that do not exist. And they use that as a predicate to then promulgate new laws that will make it even harder to protect our elections the next time.

Glenn Youngkin is being seduced by or willfully participating in the subversion of our democracy and he should be rejected for that reason.

HAYES: I want to play you -- there`s a hearing today in the Senate Judiciary Committee on election voting rights, the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. And I want to tell you what Chuck Grassley giving his -- basically this is the Mitch McConnell Republican Party view of the John Lewis Voting Rights Act which by the way is quite modest, essentially a restoration of the Voting Rights Act as it existed before John Roberts declared racism done and vitiated it. Here`s Chuck Grassley.


SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY (R-IA): The unfortunate reality is that this hearing is another attack on the Supreme Court and this bill is yet another attempt at federal takeover on state and local elections. It wrestles control of elections away from the state and into the hands of the Biden-Harris Department of Justice and partisan lawyers backed by dark money groups.


HAYES: What do you think of that?

ABRAMS: If he`s concerned about dark money, he should protect -- he should support the Freedom to Vote Act. And if he is concerned about federal takeover of elections, he needs to read the bill. What the bill provides for is a uniform system of minimum standards so that regardless of where you live in the United States, your freedom to vote is protected.

It does not take away from any state the right to control the election -- the conduct of elections but it requires that in that conduct that you actually conduct yourself honorably, that you treat every voter equally, and that you provide access to the right to vote for every eligible voter.

This is indeed what Iowa likes to say it stands for which is being first in the nation. And what we are saying is that whether you`re first or last, when you go to vote, you should be able to vote with the same quality of democracy that everyone else expects. And that is why the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis voting Rights Advancement Act are essential to the protection of our democracy.


HAYES: Stacey Abrams, always pleasure to have you on. Thank you for your time.

ABRAMS: Thank you.

HAYES: Laurence Tribe is a constitutional law expert, professor emeritus at Harvard Law School, has written and spoken extensively on the attempted 2020 coup, what we can do to protect -- prevent the next one. And he joins me now.

Laurence, I feel like we`ve all learned a lot about the plumbing of the Electoral College and the complicated system by which under both the United States constitution, the 12th Amendment, and the electoral count act as well as state law, you get this sort of transmission from the votes go in and the president comes out over here. And it does seem like that is subject to a lot of hanky-panky they tried last time but is still vulnerable.

LAURENCE TRIBE, PROFESSOR EMERITUS, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL: Absolutely. And Stacey Abrams is right on the front lines of trying to reduce the vulnerability and it`s important to do that. But even if voting rights are fully protected and people get to vote and their votes are not audited out of existence, we still have a lot of plumbing to go through. And after people vote, there are a lot of processes by which those who really have no respect for law or for the constitution can turn the system inside out and upside down.

And that`s why people like me are quite vigilant about making sure that we do everything we can to prevent a bloodless coup from taking place even before another insurrection.

HAYES: That`s why state -- the states are so key here. We know that part of the plan laid out by trump and some of his lawyers, Eastman being one of them as well as Jeffrey Clark, was I think thinking about this at the Department of Justice is -- I`m sorry, Clark`s subordinate.

The idea that they were thinking about was basically get the states to basically pull the authority away from the written vote count and essentially assert a prerogative to send their own electors. How plausible is that scenario it sounds hair-brained but how plausible is it?

It`s something they could certainly try to do because the ultimate power to send electors to the Electoral College belongs to the state legislatures. And in the beginning of the republic, individual citizens didn`t really have a lot of control. State legislatures made the decision.

Gradually, we have moved toward a system of one person one vote. But in the face of that system, state legislatures are now trying out a new theory saying it doesn`t matter what our people say, we can disregard the vote of the people and name our own electors.

Now, I`ve written some articles about why that`s a mistake. I don`t think even a conservative supreme court would uphold it. And I don`t agree that the supreme court would automatically bow out of the system. But that`s what they`re trying and they`re trying to have it both ways. This time they thought that the way to get their way was to advance a theory that says the vice president of the United States sitting as the president of the senate has ultimate power to decide who the next president will be.

That`s crazy. It`s not what the system says. And it wouldn`t have made sense because the vice president is often conflicted. The vice president may indeed be the next presidential candidate. On the other hand, they`re now saying oh well, when the vice president is Kamala Harris, she`s just a potted plant. She`ll have no power, no authority, and that`s equally crazy.

You remember that Al Gore exercised some discretion against his own self- interest. When pursuant to the Electoral Count Act of 1887, he rejected some challenges --

HAYES: That`s right.

TRIBE: -- to the victory of George W. Bush on the ground that the challenges didn`t meet the criteria. They were supported by a member of the House but not by a senator. There are all kinds of rules about which challenges can be accepted and what counts as a genuine dispute, and the vice president is neither all-powerful as Eastman and Trump tried to convince Pence. He was nor utterly powerless as they are now trying to say Kamala Harris would be.

The truth is somewhere in between and we have to be very careful in developing our legal arguments to make sure that they cannot have it both ways and that the vice president retains at least some authority to prevent the stealing of the election.


HAYES: This final point I think is the one that sort of crystallizes for me. Is that what happened last time around the states sent electors that gave Biden the presidency and they were trying to push on Mike Pence and Congress to essentially overturn it at this last moment.

What the fear is this time is that it`s already done prior to that in the states such that Republican states take a variety of actions such that they are sending to Washington as a fait accompli, oh no, the Republican has won. And then it is that Congress just has to go along with the essentially soft coup as opposed to affirmatively act to reverse it.

TRIBE: Right. And a lot is going to depend on who controls Congress, who controls the House, and who controls the Senate after 2022 because whatever power the vice president has, Congress ultimately may be able to override the vice president. And the power of the Congress to override the vice president may itself not be unlimited.

So we are entering a very difficult area where because one side has no set of constraints, no belief in the norms, no commitment to the constitution or the rule of law, while the other side is trying to observe the rules. It`s an asymmetrical kind of warfare. And that means we have to redouble our efforts both in 2022 and in the run-up to 2024.

HAYES: Lawrence Tribe, thank you so much for your time tonight.

TRIBE: Thanks, Chris.

HAYES: Four of Donald Trump`s former advisors have until tomorrow to respond to subpoenas issued by the January 6 committee. But there`s one former aide who hasn`t even been served because they reportedly cannot track him down to physically give him the paperwork.

Next, what to expect ahead of tomorrow`s deadline and what we know about the committee`s interview with a former Trump DOJ official. We`ll be right back.



HAYES: It`s been exactly nine months since the attempted insurrection at the Capitol on January 6th. So far, 625 people have been federally charged, 92 have pled guilty, 12 have been sentenced. But while some of the people who physically stormed the Capitol are being held to account, none of the people who encourage the insurrection has faced any consequences.

Tomorrow is the deadline for four of Trump`s confidantes to comply with subpoenas from the January 6th Committee. Lawmakers want to hear from former Chief of Staff to the President Mark Meadows, former White House Strategist Steve Bannon, Defense Department aide Kash Patel, and Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino.

Scavino reportedly still hasn`t even been physically served his subpoena because investigators can`t find him. Even if they do locate him, it`s no guarantee he will comply. A source telling the Guardian newspaper all four aides are expected to file at least some of the elements of subpoenas under direction from former President Trump.

Betsy Woodruff Swan has been tracking all these developments as the national correspondent for Politico and she joins me now. First, let`s start with the Scavino thing just because it`s kind of interesting and curious that he is unfindable. Do we know if that`s the case and what the import of that is?

BETSY WOODRUFF SWAN, NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT, POLITICO: That`s right. I can tell you that as of two days ago, my understanding was that Scavino had not been served a subpoena. Of course, there are other reports that that information is still correct and that he still hasn`t been served. I`m not able to confirm that as of today.

The committee has not been able to find him. It`s certainly unusual circumstances and it could create problems of course for subpoena enforcement for the committee because you can`t exactly blame someone for not honoring your subpoena if you can`t show legally that you actually gave it to them.

Now, it may strike everyone is surely there`s no question whatsoever that Scavino knows they`ve issued this subpoena. But for legal purposes, you have to make sure that the person you`re subpoenaing gets it. And it`s absolutely a weird odd situation, one of many weird odd situations that it`s not clear you know 24 hours before the subpoena deadline that this guy has a subpoena in his hands.

HAYES: Yes, it`s also -- we just say like if -- I don`t know the details here but just as an -- as a sort of abstract level or sort of logistical reasoning here. Like, if you`re not being served, it`s because you`re taking some steps to not be found, right? Like, the job of these people is -- I mean, so there`s -- you know, this is like a sort of like deadbeat dad hiding out in a like, you know, burner apartment kind of move generally. I`m not saying that`s what`s happening with Scavino, but like usually they can find you.

SWAN: Usually, it`s pretty easy to find people because everyone has a cell phone and cell phones are -- people should know, cell phones give a lot of information about your location to people. Some of the trump world folks who I was in touch with today, however, said that they were very amused and surprised by this reporting because in their view, Scavino should be pretty easy to find.

He`s not on the lam. He`s listed as a host for an upcoming fundraiser for a Trump-friendly candidate who`s running for office in Ohio. So, it`s weird that they haven`t been able to track him down. It`s weird.

HAYES: So, the bit -- this is a big test here, right? You`ve got the current White House saying there`s no invocation we`re going to assert of executive privilege which carries a lot because they`re the current officer that would have the privilege to which the privilege would adhere. Donald Trump threatening all sorts of craziness, you know, in his -- in his missives that no one reads.

What is the expectation of the folks around the committee about what this deadline means and what happens?

SWAN: I have not spoken to anyone who expects these Trump aides to comply with a subpoena. The next question and this is something that members are talking openly about they`re kind of hopscotching over the question of compliance because they don`t seem particularly likely.

What the next important dilemma for this committee is how do they twist arms to get these people to cooperate? And of course, the nuclear option which is actually very much available to them is to move to make a criminal referral to the Justice Department. They can only do that with any sort of chance of success, of course, because the Biden administration controls the Justice Department. If Trump were president, I can guarantee you, Bill Barr would not be bringing charges against these guys.

But it actually is a real option and it brings a sentence of up to a year in prison, fine of up to a $100,000 if you`re found guilty of criminal contempt of Congress. So, it`s no small potatoes. It`s the kind of thing that can be highly motivating to some of these folks.


HAYES: We should also say there are people who are cooperating. Among them, Richard Donoghue who`s the formerly the Justice Department second in command. He appeared for a closed-door interview on Friday with the select panel investigating January 6 according to two sources familiar with the matter. What`s his significance?

SWAN: Donoghue was one of Bill Barr`s closest allies. Barr hand-picked him from the Brooklyn U.S. attorney`s office and brought him to main justice to try to play a role in running DOJ overall. Donoghue is one of the very last Trump administration appointees at the senior level of DOJ, had a front row seat to all the craziness that happened. He is perhaps most famous for sparring with Jeffrey Clark, the Trump administration official at DOJ who wanted to send a letter to a bunch of states saying, the FBI had evidence of significant voter fraud when the FBI did not have evidence of significant voter fraud.

Donoghue was against that letter going out, so he really knows with immense granularity just how much craziness was going on at DOJ in those last days.

HAYES: All right, Betsy Woodruff Swan, thank you so much.

SWAN: Thank you.

HAYES: Next up, listen to this. The governor of Idaho left the state for a border photo op. While he was gone, the lieutenant governor of Idaho went completely rogue in brazen power grab. And if this story sounds familiar, it`s because she`s already done this once before. Stick around. This one is a good one.



HAYES: Idaho`s Republican governor Brad Little is on a trip to the Texas- Mexico border this week along with nine other Republican governors. You see him there just over Nebraska Governor Pete Ricketts` shoulder. Now, it`s kind of a weird stunt that a bunch of Republicans have been doing, making a stand about the border crisis.

And I should note here, of course in case this is not obvious, Idaho right all the way up there is not on the Southern Border, far from it, though it does share a 45-mile border with Canada. Republicans seem way less worried about that border for some reason. I don`t know.

And while Governor Little was away touring the border on this stunt, the state`s lieutenant governor, Janice McGeachin, who happens to be running for governor herself, more on that later, basically out-stunted him by just taking control of the state.

Now, the Idaho constitution has this interesting line that if the governor leaves the state, the lieutenant governor is basically in charge. Lots of states have this. But the current lieutenant governor appears to be the first to interpret that clause in this way.

So, while the governor was away at the border doing his sort of stunty thing, she requested information on the steps needed for the governor to activate the National Guard to send them to the very border the governor was visiting. And she issued an executive order that prohibited all state agencies including schools from requiring proof of a COVID-19 vaccine or requiring mandatory testing.

The governor responded tweeting, "I will be rescinding and reversing any actions taken by lieutenant governor when I return."

James Dawson is a politics reporter for Boise State Public Radio, and he`s been following this truly bizarre story and he joins me now. James, thanks so much for joining us. I guess first give us a little back story here. This did happen last summer. I think we covered on the show where the governor left and the lieutenant governor pulled something similar. Is that right?

JAMES DAWSON, POLITICS REPORTER, BOISE STATE PUBLIC RADIO: Well, yes. So, last May, we had uh the governor lead the states for a, you know, a conference that he was with other Republican governors, and she issued an executive order that would have banned mask mandates in schools. Now, in Idaho, any type of mass mandate or vaccination requirement which there aren`t any for Idaho public schools, have to go through the local school board.

And so, you know, that was immediately reversed by the governor when he got back. And we actually saw the same thing happen today. As you saw the tweet from Governor Little, he actually reversed that while he was in Texas which could actually spark a lawsuit. We don`t know yet.

HAYES: OK, what`s the deal here? This is not -- I mean, normally what happens in a lot of states, governor and lieutenant governor run as a kind of ticket like president and vice president. There`s other states where they`re independently elected. What`s the relationship here and what is going on?

DAWSON: Yes, that`s exactly right. There`s not much of a relationship really. You have, you know, the lieutenant governor who is a pretty far- right politician. The governor, Brad Little, is you know, part of the family dynasty of ranchers here in the states. He`s much more moderate and has been around for a very long time in the Idaho political sphere whereas Janice McGeachin, you know, she`s relatively new, not too new. This is her first statewide position.

But I mean, when the pandemic was really going last summer, for the first surge, there was a point where they didn`t talk for two or three weeks uh which he told us on one of our talk shows here at Boise State Public Radio. And then it`s just been devolving ever since. You`ve had her show up at businesses where they reopened before they were allowed to under the reopening plan. And she has criticized him at most every step for any action he`s taken.

HAYES: Yes, it sounds like she has been too -- she`s been to his right so to speak on these public health issues and basically been sort of berating him about being too authoritarian and too concerned with public health. Is she -- she`s now -- has she announced formally that she`s going to primary him?

DAWSON: Oh, yes. She filed for -- you know, technically you file as -- or file a treasurer report and you name a treasurer here in Idaho. And she did that several months ago. So, it`s been well known that she is running for governor. The governor himself is getting his re-election campaign started right now. And it`s going to be a crowded field.

You also have, you know, Ammon Bundy who led the armed standoff at the Malheur Wild Wildlife refuge in Oregon in 2016. He`s also running in that Republican primary.


HAYES: Wow. That will be indeed crowded. What is her deal? What`s her background?

DAWSON: Her background is she`s a business owner. She owns a few businesses with her husband in Idaho Falls which is in the eastern part of the state, a bar and restaurant and automotive dealership -- or parts dealership. And you know, she has recently been really courting far-right groups including a militia group here in Idaho called The Real Three Percenters of Idaho.

You know she`s had other controversies where she has supported people who have been convicted and now that conviction was vacated. The only man to be convicted with the Bundy ranch standoff you know about a decade ago in Nevada sending love to him in prison.

So, you know, she has really courted that vote. We`ll see if it turns out well for her in the primary, but uh you know that remains to be seen.

HAYES: All right, we will monitor that. James Dawson, thank you very much.

DAWSON: Thanks.

HAYES: Still ahead, no heroes among hosts over at Fox News. Why they won`t call out their own employer for the supposed tyranny they rail against every night, after this.



HAYES: OK, I`m going to tell you something. I don`t have any inside information or anything, but I know this business. And I got to tell you, I think Tucker Carlson is going to quit at Fox News. Now, hear me out, OK. Fox News, as I`ve told you, is running one of the most destructive disinformation campaigns I`ve ever seen. It`s exacerbating one of the deadliest periods in American history.

Media Matters found that channel pushed claims undermining vaccines 99 of the days in the past six months. And the hosts over there are strenuously opposed to vaccine mandates or requirements, right? They let you know every chance they get.


SEAN HANNITY, HOST, FOX NEWS CHANNEL: Joe, you canceled all medical freedom today with your broad edict and your mandates.

BRIAN KILMEADE, CONTRIBUTOR, FOX NEWS CHANNEL: When you start diving into private business, that`s where the rubber hits the road.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is tyranny and it`s getting more and more aggressive. This is autocracy.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It is the beginning of the communist-style social credit system.

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST, FOX NEWS CHANNEL: These demands are so obviously irrational that forcing you to accept them without complaint is the whole point of the exercise. It is a form of sadomasochism. It is dominance and submission. It`s about power. If they can make you take medicine you don`t want or need, they`ve won. You are theirs. You belong to them.


HAYES: Sadomasochism. Spicy, Tucker. Who would willingly suffer in such submission? It`s why fox news has been celebrating the very brave resistors in other organizations who have resigned from their jobs or gotten fired or placed on some kind of leave rather than get the vaccine or be owned. They brought on nurses and teachers, even an army lieutenant colonel.

But their newest champion is someone at another cable channel, ESPN. A host there named Sage Steele who is now suspended from being on air partly for appearing on a podcast and going after her employer for mandating vaccines.


SAGE STEELE, CO-HOST, ESPN: I think to mandate -- I respect everyone`s decision. I really do. but to mandate it, is sick and it`s scary to me in many ways. But I have a job, a job that I love, and frankly a job that I need. But again, I love it. I just -- I`m not surprised it got to this point especially with this Disney, I mean a global company.


HAYES: OK, so, as you just saw there, ESPN`s Sage Steele had the courage of her convictions. She got vaccinated because they required her. But then she went -- she called out her employer`s vaccine mandate even though it got her suspended which naturally made her a hero at Fox News.


CLAY TRAVIS, POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FOX NEWS CHANNEL: I think sage is brave for being willing to say exactly what she thinks.

I agree with everything sage said. I don`t think it makes sense for ESPN to be mandating the vaccine for employees. I think they should be allowing employees to make their choices.


HAYES: The irony here again is that none of these people, Clay Travis, Brian Kilmeade, to Tucker Carlson have shown that same bravery to call out their own network and their own employer. The Fox News vaccine requirement is stricter than the one proposed by President Joe Biden and described as tyranny and creeping communism.

Fox is requiring unvaccinated employees to be tested every day. And inside the buildings, I mean just look at this video of the opening of their new D.C. bureau. Everyone is wearing masks and are most likely also vaccinated or getting tested every day because that is what their company is mandating.

Now, Tucker Carlson has been the most vocal anti-vaccination voice in American media. And unless he just does not actually believe any of the stuff he`s saying, and it`s all just a craven cynical act for ratings while he himself is vaxxed and people die needlessly by the thousands, he might just be highlighting all those other people who showed actual courage as he works up his own courage, you know kind of through osmosis to walk out.

Because if you truly believe you are suffering under the sadomasochistic heel of a tyrannical employer, even if they are paying you lots and lots of money, even if you don`t want people to think you`re a total fraud, then you have got to have the guts to call out Fox News or resign in protest. There`s no other option. It`s the only way forward. You can do it, Tucker. I believe in you.



HAYES: There`s new polling out for President Biden`s big Build Back Better agenda and it`s both really bad news and really good news. The bad news is it`s losing support. It is the worst polling yet for the plan. It`s now polling at 57 percent approval, which is also the really good news, because 57 percent approval for anything in this country is incredibly good.

Compare that to what the polling was when Republicans wanted to repeal the entire Affordable Care Act in 2017. Only 22 percent of the country approved of that. Or the polling for the Trump tax cuts, 26 percent approved, which by the way, they passed anyway. Or even the original ACA poll before it passed in 2010. Only 35 percent of Americans mostly approved of it.

The Build Back Better bill is so much more popular as a major domestic policy agenda that politically, it shouldn`t be hard to vote. In fact, it`s part of what`s so maddening to everyone I think in the Democratic Party as they`re watching this play out.

As former Democratic Congressman Tom Perriello who lost his swing-state seat in Virginia after voting for the ACA wrote in THE WASHINGTON post, casting a vote for the current Biden agenda is not particularly bold at all. It`s common sense political survival. And Tom Perriello joins me now.

Tom, I enjoyed your op-ed, and it jives with what I have felt having covered those big legislative fights on Capitol Hill in Washington D.C. in 2009 and 2010, three bills, Dodd-Frank, the ACA, and Waxman-Markey, and watching this. How different are the politics right now to your mind?


TOM PERRIELLO, FORMER DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSMAN FROM VIRGINIA: It`s a world of difference. I mean, you`re talking about bills that are wildly popular. The other side`s not even that organized against it. They`re so focused on conspiracies about election fraud, and vaccines and critical race theory that they`re not even focused on opposing this agenda.

And it delivers much sooner than ObamaCare, which I was proud to vote for, for every region, every race, every class. This is basically President Biden handing Democrats on, you know, working-class platter, a huge win for saying we can deliver for people across the board on popular things that don`t have that much intensity of opposition, or you can wreck all of that.

It`s like, do you want to rebuild the American dream or do you want to create a midterm nightmare, and you have the choice.

HAYES: This part, you just mentioned this in passing, but I want to hone in on it, which is that the ACA was a wild situation in which for budgetary window reasons, you pass the thing and waited like three or four years for it to kick in. There were some provisions that started early so it`s like no one could tangibly like, well, I got health care, right, in the next election.

You say the toughest part of selling the ACA in 2010 was that, was the vast majority of provisions were hypothetical future benefits. But 2022 can be election for Democrats to run on child tax credits so parents can see in their bank accounts, expanded elderly care options for those struggling with an aging parent. This stuff is all scheduled to start right away if they can pass it and put it into law.

PERRIELLO: It`s really true. And I think this lays bare that while the media still likes to put things into a left, right, center spectrum. If you look at the people obstructing this bill, there`s nothing particularly moderate or centrist about them. There`s just something very aligned with corporate PAC money about it.

You have a situation where something like the prescription drug reform is incredibly popular with Democrats, Republicans, Independents. It saves senior citizens money, it saves taxpayer money, and it`s good policy for the country. Opposing that, there`s nothing moderate about it, it`s just not understanding how much the working and middle class in America are struggling today.

So, here we have a chance to deliver immediately. And this is where you see the brilliance of someone like Senator Warren or Katie Porter. They want the child tax credit to apply to everybody. They`re not trying to divide people. Like, well into the middle class, it`s hard to afford these things.

And are we going to start bringing America together to rebuild the more affordable American dream or do we want to divide people? We know one side wants to divide. But if we can just unite the Democratic Caucus, we can also probably unite America again.

HAYES: Yes. And one -- the other thing here is this -- the caucus is pretty united. I mean, these are much narrower margins than what you were part of back in the House and the Senate, right? Those were big, big margins. These are much narrower margins, but also higher degrees of consensus.

You can see the frustration of Bernie Sanders who is, you know, to the left of that caucus but has been a very practical team player on this, that there`s this hold up. Here`s what he had to say about Manchin today.


SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT): My concern with Mr. Manchin is not so much what his views are. I disagree with him. But it is that it is wrong. It is really not playing fair that one or two people think that they could be able to stop what 48 members of the Democratic caucus want, what the American people want, what the President of the United States wants. That would be my position.


HAYES: What do you think of that?

PERRIELLO: Look, ultimately, the dividing line right now in judging Washington is not are you too far to one side or the other, it`s did you deliver. And if Democrats deliver on things like the affordability of child care, of elderly care, of dental care, these are things that the American people are going to reward.

And if instead you go Washington, as some of these senators have done and say, we`re going to listen to a few, you know, lobbying think tanks on K Street instead of what`s happening on Main Street, that`s going to go a different way. These are things that are deeply rooted in creating a stronger and more inclusive American dream.

And frankly, I can`t imagine a more exciting honor than being a member of Congress right now and getting the chance to vote on these things, to being able to hear for your constituents and say, hey, I was part of this historic moment. It`s pretty exciting.

HAYES: All right, Tom Perriello, thank you so much for joining us.

PERRIELLO: Thanks so much for having me, Chris.

HAYES: That is ALL IN on this Wednesday night. "THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW" starts right now. Good evening, Rachel. You have Bernie Sanders tonight.

RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: I do have Bernie Sanders tonight. And boy, did he make news today.