With a slow-motion coup in progress and the last coup investigation ongoing, why tomorrow`s vote in Virginia is anything but normal. Blockbuster reporting from the Washington Post on before, during, and after the Capitol attack. Interview with one D.C. Homeland Security official whose warnings of violent insurrection were ignored. In its new investigative piece, the Washington Post details the carnage that took place while Former President Trump remained silent.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: God bless you all and may God save the planet.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: I`m glad he said that because it`s going to take a miracle to turn this planet around. So, tonight, the lack of global outrage and action when it comes to the demise of the only planet we`ve got is the absolute worst. And that`s tonight`s "REIDOUT."
ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES starts now.
CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST: Tonight, on ALL IN.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You endorsed Youngkin.
DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: And I did endorse Youngkin, I did. I endorsed him strongly.
HAYES: With a slow-motion coup in progress and the last coup investigation ongoing, why tomorrow`s vote in Virginia is anything but normal. Then --
CAROL LEONNIG, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: On December 17th, the FBI gets a tipster call, who warns them, there`s chatter on this extremist site that`s pro- Donald Trump. And they are saying, let`s kill these cops around Congress on January 6.
HAYES: Blockbuster reporting from the Washington Post on before, during, and after the Capitol attack. Tonight, my exclusive interview with the D.C. Homeland Security official whose warnings of violent insurrection were ignored.
Plus, the Texas law establishing a bounty to stop abortions gets a hearing in the Supreme Court.
ELENA KAGAN, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: That was something that until this law came along, no state dreamed of doing.
HAYES: And as Joe Biden heads to Glasgow, why there`s a case for real optimism at the U.N. climate talks, when ALL IN starts right now.
Good evening from New York, I`m Chris Hayes.
On the eve of the biggest election of the year, Donald Trump wants everyone to know that he and Virginia Republican gubernatorial candidate, Glenn Youngkin, are thick as thieves, two peas in a pod, virtually indistinguishable from one another. You don`t have to take my word for it.
Trump released a statement today, decrying the media, quote, "Is trying to create an impression that Glenn Youngkin and I are at odds don`t like each other. Importantly, this is not true. We get along very well together and strongly believe in many of the same policies."
Trump is also expected to call into a town hall supporting Youngkin any minute now. And it will not be the first time. You might remember that rally last month in Richmond, Virginia, where attendees pledged allegiance to an American flag that was at the January 6 insurrection on D.C.
Trump also called into that rally to endorse Youngkin. But notably, the guy he was endorsing, the Republican nominee, Glenn Youngkin, was not present at the very weird flag event. In fact, he kind of tried to distance himself from it. He will not be present at today`s event either telling reporters yesterday, quote, "I`m not going to be engaged in the tele townhall."
You sure won`t be. I mean, it makes a lot of sense. Glenn Youngkin is no dummy. He`s running as a Republican in the state Donald Trump lost by 10 points just a year ago. He understands that if he wants to win, there needs to be some distance between himself and Donald Trump.
But right now, it looks like that strategy might be paying off. Don`t get hold the narrow lead in the polling averages. It`s a very serious competitor, if not, the outright favorite to win tomorrow in Virginia. It`s a close race either way, but if you take a step back, look at the history of that state. It being a close race kind of makes sense.
Democrats in Virginia have controlled the governor`s mansion since 2014. The state has had a long history of flipping against the party that controls the White House and Congress. Incoming President, George W. Bush, won Virginia by eight points back in 2004, only for Democrat, Tim Kaine, to win the gubernatorial race the next year by five points in what was seen at least in the national political media as a repudiation of both the war in Iraq and the disastrous handling of Hurricane Katrina by the Bush administration. The most visceral backlash came in 2009. That`s after Democrats cleaned house in the 2008 elections, including Barack Obama winning Virginia by six points, which stunned a whole lot of observers.
And then just a year later, following year Republican, Bob McDonell, went on to become governor of Virginia defeating his Democratic opponent by a whopping 17 points. That`s a 23-point swing in just one year. And to put it mildly, this was seen as very bad news for Democrats. Just listen to how NBC opened its nightly news broadcast the day after the election.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRIAN WILLIAMS, "11TH HOUR WITH BRIAN WILLIAMS" HOST: Good evening, a year ago, we were talking about a sea change in American politics. Tonight, we`re reporting a small change which could also be an ominous development for the year-old Obama administration.
Republicans were elected governor last night in two important states, but other than preferring both candidates to the Democrats where voters across the country last night trying to say something else, there is evidence of an angry electorate out there.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: That was not wrong. Remember what happened in the midterms in 2010. That night, what Brian was referring to, two Republican governor`s reference were Bob McDonnell in Virginia and New Jersey`s Chris Christie, that was even more stunning upset.
The point here is that because of the unusual nature of Virginia`s off-year elections being the elections not held during the presidential election, and not during the midterm year, and also because it`s kind of a swingy state in some ways. It`s a state often acts as a bellwether for public sentiment, and that would normally not be that unusual.
Again, this kind of pendulum between the major competitive parties is what democratic politics look like in liberal democracies all over the world. I mean, it`s true. You`ve got examples with some political leaders, German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, who just stepped down, or Brazil`s former President Lula who`s going to be running again, that have been known to build these lasting political coalition`s that last year`s durably.
But for the most part, what happens in countries like France and Italy, the U.K., swing back and forth between left and right with some regularity. U.K. has had the conservative party in power for a while now.
But, again, you`ve got this sort of competitive back and forth system of elections. It`s just how political gravity works in a democracy, in some ways, at least in the abstract, when you take a step back. It`s how you want them to work. You want competitive parties, single-party rules, not really a sign of a particularly well-functioning democracy, most things considered.
So, with history is our guide, it should not be very surprising if Republican Glenn Youngkin wins in Virginia tomorrow night, except, it`s not just any normal election year in America. That`s the problem. We are less than one year out from the last president, the guy that just endorsed Glenn Youngkin, attempting a coup, outright pressuring elected officials to throw the vote in his favor, to say nothing of the machinations leading up to January 6.
And as anyone even paying the slightest amount of attention will tell you that same guy, the coup guy, the guy that tried to end 240 straight years of American democracy, looks like he`s gearing up to try again in 2024. And a large part of that strategy appears to be endorsing candidates who he believes will help him overturn the will of the voters should he need them to.
Trump is pretty explicit in his embrace with candidates in states like Arizona and Georgia and Michigan, who have endorsed his big lie of voter fraud and will, who will have direct say over the elections next time around.
And that, at least, in my view, look it makes the endorsement of Youngkin somewhat suspect. Trump is not going to endorse someone who he thinks will not be there for him in three years if he needs them. He thinks he has some reason to believe Youngkin is his guy. And here`s Youngkin a few weeks ago endorsing an audit of the election results.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GLENN YOUNGKIN, VIRGINIA GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: 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. Anyway, I`m in businesses, you have an audit. So, let`s just audit the voting machines. Publish it so everybody can see it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Just audit, you know, trust. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
Now, whether or not Youngkin actually would overturn democracy in Virginia, I don`t know. Anyways, that`s an intentional strategy on his part. I mean, at least in temperament this former CEO of the private equity giant, the Carlyle Group, his tempers, it`s not particularly Trumpian, presenting himself as a harmless Virginia dad and fast.
You see, Youngkin has rediscovered an old tried and true Republican political strategy that`s weirdly kind of dissipated in a post-Trump political order but stood them in good stead for a long time. Instead of just saying the quiet part out loud, giving into the worst instincts of his political base, Youngkin traffics in subtext, dog whistles, making the Virginia election a referendum on education.
But by education, he doesn`t really mean school rankings or test scores or college preparedness or educational equity, no. He means Virginia should not be teaching children that institutional racism exists in the United States.
I mean, just listen to one Virginia Republican from Loudoun County explain her concerns with the state`s curriculum from showtimes The Circus.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PATTI HIDALGO MENDERS, PRESIDENT, LOUDOUN COUNTY REPUBLICAN WOMEN`S CLUB: They are putting down the child for the color of their skin.
ALEX WAGNER, "THE CIRCUS" HOST: Where do you see evidence of that?
MENDERS: One particular sixth grade and a middle school here. It was a rap song pushing the slaughter of the Native Americans. The lyrics of the song was putting down Andrew Jackson at the time.
WAGNER: Well, I mean, I think a lot of people would credit Andrew Jackson with the genocide of native population.
MENDERS: Yes. But how do you discuss it without --
WAGNER: Denigrating white.
MENDERS: Yes, like, at what point do you forgive and stop segregating?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: OK. So that, you know, there it is. That`s -- I mean, that`s just one woman`s opinion, but she`s representative. I don`t want my kid learning that Andrew Jackson was a vile purveyor of genocide. Please stop teaching my kid that. That`s what I want to vote for.
You see, Youngkin`s rhetoric is not the same as the outright racism we heard about Donald Trump, referring to S-hole countries calling immigrants from Mexico criminals and rapists. It`s, you know, subtler, more layered, channeling some very real anxieties among some suburban college-educated parents who voted for Joe Biden.
But the Republican base hears the message loud and clear, as you just heard. And as Trump told Fox News over the weekend, Youngkin needs that base.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I think he should win. I mean, he should win. I`ll be honest, my base has to turn out. If my base turns out, he`s going to win and I hope they turn out. I really want them to turn out.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: You see what Trump is doing there too, he`s trying to claim credit for this victory so we can call in that favor later. So Youngkin`s campaign is, in many ways, returned to form for the Republican Party. Give yourself just enough plausible deniability in the messaging you push. So, you can flip some swing voters without alienating your core base who are really worked up around these white backlash issues.
But again, what makes it also scary is this specific political moment we are in because you cannot just pretend that Trump`s authoritarian machinations are not there. It looms over all of it. They raised the existential stakes of what should be a, quote, normal back and forth of political democracy in which different coalition`s with opposing interests and ideologies compete for power.
And it is not a sustainable political equilibrium what we have right now. If you feel that in your gut, you`re not wrong. Because one of the two competitive parties, we`ve only got two, is under the sway of an authoritarian, who is committed to advancing his agenda of being crowned ruler democracy notwithstanding.
And that`s all happening while we watch the normal predictable pattern of politics.
Senator Tim Kaine is Democrat representing Virginia, previously served as governor of Virginia from 2006 to 2010, and he joins me now.
Senator, you know, this states politics as well as just about anyone. Tell me about that governor`s race in 2005. Because I remember that being a big deal. And, again, there were some of those dynamics in effect in terms of who`s in power in the White House and where the energy is in opposition. How much do you think that matter? And how much was it just about Virginia issues?
SEN. TIM KAINE (D-VA): Well, Chris, you`re right, the Virginia governor`s race coming a year after the presidential race. You see a 70 percent turnout in the presidential year. And then the governor`s race the next year, it could be 47, it could be 45, it could be 42 turnout drop, and you always see really, really close races. My race was a single point race up until election night and then I ended up winning by five or six, but everybody thought it was essentially a dead heat.
So, this is sort of a common phenomenon. And it just means that, you know, the party that has won the White House has to not be complacent. The one thing in this Virginia race that I`ll predict will be factor tomorrow night is we have 45 days of early voting in Virginia for the first time ever in a governor`s race, because our democratic Houses decided they wanted to make it convenient for people to vote. And the early vote is coming in very, very strong for Terry McAuliffe, but it`s going to be a close race tomorrow, no doubt about it.
HAYES: This is also going to be a first big election. I mean, there`s a California recall, but that was not very close. But first big election with all sorts of national eyes on it, again, with Donald Trump endorsing this candidate under the kind of specter of the big lie. And you`ve got the former president saying this today, we must win bigger than the margin of fraud by flooding the polls with those who believe in America first.
You know, you`ve got this really, again, unsustainable situation where there`s almost an expectation that if it were, say, a close loss for Glenn Youngkin, that`s not going to be the end of it, as far as Republicans are concerned.
KAINE: Well, no, I think you`re -- I think you`re right -- Youngkin started, you know, preaching the big lie about election fraud and problems with the 2020 election. He`s finishing the campaign with an ad going after of all people Toni Morrison, African-American woman, Nobel laureate for her Pulitzer Prize winning novel, "Beloved." And so, he`s finishing with this weird attack on an African-American woman author, again, coated and dog whistled.
This is a Trumpian campaign. And on the Democratic side, we believe if we win, whether it`s a close winner, even if it`s not a close win, the Youngkin team with the backing of Trump, will try to denigrate the integrity of Virginia election. So that`s why it`s so important that people turn out so that we can deliver a very, very clear mandate tomorrow because we expect the Youngkin-Trump team will try to challenge the integrity of the election.
Just look, they`re already doing it, they brought Steve Bannon in for a big rally. Ten days ago, they pledged allegiance to a flag that we use at the, quote, peaceful protest on January 6, 2021 in D.C. They`re setting it up for an attack on Virginia`s election integrity. Virginians appreciate it.
HAYES: There`s a question here also about what this race is about. I mean, when you -- it`s funny, I spent time on Youngkin`s website, I`ve been reading a local coverage, people talking about education. But you as you saw with that one parent activist in Loudoun County, a lot of this is about what are our kids learning, what are they learning about the history of American racial hierarchy and things like that.
And again, these are -- those are real issues in the sense that there are parents who are worried about them, and they`re actually like, big normative fights we have in a democracy, what do kids learn. But I can`t really find anything else about what exactly a Glenn Youngkin gubernatorial administration would look like in the state of Virginia, other than this sort of coating on, you know, defund the police or CRT or whatever?
KAINE: Well, I think you`re right, Chris, and Virginia voters are in danger of getting fleeced by this guy, because he isn`t putting up, you know, anything about what he wants to do as governor. He`s using these culture war issues.
You know, I`ll remind you, I`m sure I got a lot of Virginians watching this. Virginia schools are some of the best performing schools in the country, not only pre-K12 schools, but also our higher ed institutions. You know, most governors, if they could do it in a secret ballot would trade their education systems for Virginia, Terry McAuliffe with great education, governor, investing in education, expanding early childhood education, expanding childhood nutrition, better funding for community colleges.
A lot of people move to Virginia because the public schools are very, very high quality. That doesn`t mean we can`t do more or it`s talked about the fact that our teachers aren`t paid at the national average in the way they should be, everyone wants to move it there.
But, you know, Glenn Youngkin is trying to kind of create and then inflate a culture of grievance against schools and school teachers that doesn`t really match up with the lived reality of people in most Virginia cities.
HAYES: All right. Senator Tim Kaine, former governor from the Commonwealth of Virginia. Thanks for making little time for us tonight.
KAINE: Thank you.
HAYES: It is a big night tomorrow night. MSNBC`s live election coverage kicks off at 5:00 p.m. Eastern. And then stick around to join me, Rachel Maddow, Joy Reid. You got Steve Kornacki there as well, starting at 9:30 Eastern. Don`t miss it.
On Wednesday, January 6, as we watched thousands of Trump supporters mob the Capitol, one of the biggest questions of the day was, why was law enforcement so unprepared? There`s explosive new reporting from Washington Post that details the largely ignored efforts of one man who tried hard to warn federal authorities, the head of intelligence at D.C.`s Homeland Security Office, saw the warning signs, sounded every alarm he could, and he`s here to tell me what went wrong, next.
HAYES: Big new blockbuster investigative piece about January 6 today. There`s still so much we are learning about the events surrounding January 6. And this Washington Post just released report really helps fill in some of the blanks.
It`s got epic documentation of what happened before, during, and after the insurrection sort of broken up into three parts. And it`s always been a bit unclear exactly what law enforcement thought would happen that day. But this report leaves little question there were plenty of warning signs, quote, "The head of intelligence D.C.`s Homeland Security Office was growing desperate. For days, Donell Harvin and his team had spotted increasing signs that supporters of President Donald Trump are planning violence when Congress met to formalize the electoral college vote. Federal law enforcement agencies did not seem to share his sense of urgency.
After Harvin heard from his counterparts across the country, they were seeing the same troubling signs he did everything he could to sound a warning, quote, "Forty-eight hours before the attack, Harvin began pressing every alarm button he could. He invited the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Homeland Security, military intelligence services, and other agencies to see the information in real time as his team collected it. He took another extreme step. He asked the city`s health department to convene a call in D.C. area hospitals and urged them to prepare for a mass casualty event. Empty your emergency rooms, he said, and stock up your blood banks.
Despite his efforts, the Capitol Police were still woefully unprepared when thousands of Trump supporters swarmed the Capitol.
The man sounding that alarm Donell Harvin is the former chief of Homeland Security Intelligence of the D.C. Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency, and he joins me now. Dr. Harvin, thank you so much.
First, will you just describe what your role was, what your job was to be doing in the runup to January 6 that led you to be looking at this activity and getting nervous about?
DONELL HARVIN, FORMER CHIEF OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Well, thank you, Chris. Me and my team are responsible for collecting, disseminating, and analyzing threat information that could impact the operations or harm anybody that comes into the District of Columbia. And so, we have responsibilities to share that information with all of our federal, local, and state partners.
HAYES: And what were you seeing that was that was so alarming?
HARVIN: We had seen a lot of activity in October, November, with a lot of the First Amendment protected activities that were going around, around election. What we saw leading up to January 6 was something that we had never seen before that my staff were alarmed, particularly actors, threat actors that were coming into D.C. that we had never had encountered before. They were coming from all over the country.
We saw our militia who don`t generally come to D.C. because they don`t like to leave home with their arms -- without their arms. And we saw a lot of threat information suggesting that people would be sequestering weapons and looking for ways to enter the Capitol.
HAYES: What are the interesting aspects of this that comes through in this reporting is, is the -- is the hard and difficult fine line between what you just referred to First Amendment protected activity and threat, right? I mean, we want a free society where people can say, you know, I can put up a blog post that says, I believe the U.S. government should be overturned or we should have a revolution in the U.S., and that`s First Amendment protected activity.
I`m going to go to D.C. who wants to help me train firing a weapon is probably still First Amendment protected, but is the kind of thing that leads to something different? And you can see throughout the reporting and understandable worry about infringing on people`s First Amendment, but how is -- what`s the guideline for dealing with that kind of activity, that kind of speech?
HARVIN: Listen, first things first. If you can`t come to the Nation`s Capital and redress your government, then we see leaving the democracy. And so, our job -- me and my team`s job, first and foremost, is protect everybody that comes to Washington D.C., to make sure they are able to participate in peaceful First Amendment protected activities, and to protect the city from any anybody who may have some nefarious thoughts.
The dividing line, as you mentioned, is when individuals start sharing what we call TTPs, Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures that indicate that they`re doing anything else, but coming to peacefully demonstrate, sequestering weapons and long guns, which are not allowed in the District of Columbia. Sharing plans to infiltrate the Capitol, sharing radio signals for the handheld radios and things of that nature. And so, those are the -- those are the real worrisome signs that we saw leading up. And there was a lot of it. It wasn`t just what you hear conventionally called chatter. It was an avalanche of information.
HAYES: Yes. And there`s other people who are monitoring this having similar experiences. You`re talking to people in field offices around the country, including one gentleman in San Francisco who are hearing this as well. And it`s a lot of like you said, it`s, you know, there`s the guy who runs this in my favorite detail here, the guy who runs some website devoted to the tunnels under the Capitol, sending a message to the FBI saying, I`ve seen a huge spike in my traffic. And it seems like the traffic`s coming from these right-wing message boards, like the Donald people like looking up the tunnels on the Capitol, something`s happening here.
What do you try to do with this information? Who do you try to convene? And what was that met with?
HARVIN: Yes. Well, we were drinking at some point probably about a week before the January 6 event. We were essentially drinking through a firehose, as far as information and intelligence. And so, as you mentioned, I reached out to my counterpart, Mike Sena (PH), in San Francisco and asked for his guidance.
And so that was the first step to kind of share what we were seeing at our -- at our end with the National Fusion Center Network. And everyone was seeing the same thing. So, we did our due diligence and we pushed that up to our leadership. They acted upon it relatively quickly. And then we also share that information with our federal partners.
HAYES: So, the big question is, why more wasn`t done? And in the reporting in the Washington Post, there`s a whole bunch of different details there, some of which make a lot of sense and a lot of fanciness and worry on the part of the Pentagon about the deployment of National Guard troops, what message it would send? Did Trump possibly trying to redirect them towards his own end?
It`s like, you know, understandable stuff, but it does -- it does seem like you hit a brick wall a little bit with federal authorities in their ability to cognize what could happen.
HARVIN: See, I can`t speak to that because we share the information and we don`t know what happens once it gets to the other agencies. I can tell you that we met with as many people as we can meet within -- you mentioned earlier, we met even with the hospitals. We generally aren`t in the threat intelligence consumption business.
We spoke with whoever we can meet with. We had our analysts out there meeting with people and collecting information. And I`m just as curious as you are and the American public about what happened with that information. And I`m looking forward to finding out once the investigations are done.
HAYES: Dr. Donell Harvin, really, really enjoyed talking tonight. Thank you so much.
HARVIN: Thank you, Chris.
HAYES: Ahead, Donald Trump waited over three hours to address the mob that attacked the Capitol and assaulted police officers and threatened the life of his vice president all in his name. Next, more from that extraordinary new report from The Washington Post that offers an entirely new perspective how that day unfolded. And just what happened in those three hours of silence. We`ll be right back.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I know you`re in pain. I know you`re hurt. We had an election that was stolen. And you have to go home now. We have to have peace. We have to have law and order. We have retreat.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Trump told us to go. I remember thinking, all right, let`s get out of here. Let`s go.
TRUMP: We love you. You`re very special, but go home and go home in peace.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He says go home.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Donald Trump has asked everybody to go home.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: That 30-second clip from the outstanding HBO documentary Four Hours of the Capitol probably some of the best evidence the people who attacked the Capitol on January 6 were literally waiting on the whims of Donald Trump for their next move. But for hours before Trump sent that message telling his supporters to go home, that he loved them but go home, he said nothing.
In its new investigative piece, the Washington Post details the carnage that took place while Trump remained silent. "During the 187 minutes the Trump stood by, harrowing scenes of violence played out in around the Capitol.
25 minutes into Trump`s silence, a news photographer was dragged down a flight of stairs and thrown over a wall. 52 minutes, and a police officer was kicked in the chest surrounded by a mob. Within the first hour, two rioters died as a result of cardiac events. 64 minutes in, a rioter paraded a confederate battle flag through the Capitol.
73 minutes in, another police officer was sprayed in the face with chemicals. 78 minutes in, yet another police officer was assaulted with a flagpole. 83 minutes in, rioters broke into and began looting the House Speaker`s Office. 93 minutes in another news photographer was surrounded pushed down and robbed of a camera. 94 minutes in, a rioter was shot and killed.
102 minutes in, rioters stormed the Senate chamber stealing papers and posing for photographs around the dais. 116 minutes, in a fourth police officer was crushed in a doorway and beaten with his own baton all, in the first two hours.
Rosalind Helderman is one of the many reporters who helped piece together the Washington Post`s comprehensive look at the events before during and after January 6th and she joins me now. And first, I got to say, it`s great work, Rosalind. I learned a lot from it as someone who has been covering this intimately day in day out, day in day out, I still learn from it.
I guess the first question here is what your reporting suggests. We saw that video to open up which is this sort of amazing syncing up moment of the president says go home, people crowded around smartphones saying, oh we`ve got the message. What took so long that it had to be 187 minutes to get to that message?
ROSALIND HELDERMAN, REPORTER, WASHINGTON POST: Yes. I mean we know that at that time the then-President was not even in the Oval Office. He was in his private dining room. And all kinds of people were trying to reach him and get him to speak out and he would not do it. He appeared to be charged by the crowd.
Part of the reason why we did this in this format is we wanted to show how his words galvanized his supporters before that day, how his silence empowered them on that day, and how the things he has said since the election has continued to galvanize his supporters even to this day so that the -- what drove January 6 really hasn`t faded at all.
HAYES: One thing that becomes clear is that whatever Trump`s sort of, you know, enjoyment or passivity -- I don`t know the right word -- of what he`s watching happen, the members inside, Republican and Democrat are freaked out. You got Lindsey Graham basically yelling at the sergeant-at-arms to shoot people, I mean to be more proactive. And at this desperate attempt by these members to try to get Trump to call off the dogs, basically.
HELDERMAN: Yes. One of the things that we report is that there were -- there were members who were calling and basically saying, if we can get back to work, we`ll object to the election for you. But right now, people are trying to kill us, which is incredible, you know, cognitive dissonance right there.
HAYES: Yes. That`s -- I mean, just to be clear here, that`s the mob essentially kind of getting what it wants, right? I mean, the mob storms because they want to disrupt this. Now, a lot of these members had said that they were going to vote against certification to begin with, but that`s a -- this sort of almost desperate supplement plea to say look, you control these people. That`s the implicit nature of all the contact to Trump across the ideological and partisan divide is we know they will listen to you.
HELDERMAN: Well, right. And they still do. One of the things we have looked at in this series is the ongoing threats to public officials. We found that in at least 17 states, election officials, their lives or physical safety have been threatened since January 6, not before it, since that date. And that those threats often spike right after the now former president targets a person by name or goes after their state.
HAYES: What did you learn that you didn`t know from this reporting having been around this as I have? What stood out to you here? To me, the sort of timeline you assemble of the sheer carnage and, you know, awful human costs that could have been prevented is really striking. I`m curious what jumped out to you.
HELDERMAN: Yes, I mean, it`s the role of the president and it`s the missed red flags that you -- that you mentioned or talked about with Dr. Harvin in the previous segment. You know, we write -- there`s a lot that`s new though, I have to say. There were 75 uh Washington Post journalists who participated in this project. It`s three very long chapters. So, there`s a lot that`s new across -- the across the three segments.
And this question of how this looms over everything that comes after sort of haunts the entire piece, because as you say here in terms of the threats to local officials, like, it`s not a one and done situation. At least not in the mind of the president who`s called it the real -- like, the protest, the real insurrection was election day. And I don`t think it`s left the minds of the people that work on the Capitol either.
HELDERMAN: No. One of the things we write about is the deep trauma that is still affecting members of Congress, but also members of the Capitol Hill police force. We profile a captain on that force who has been having dreams, was badly injured by chemicals used that day. And so, there`s a lot of people still struggling with what happened. And part of what makes them struggle is the understanding that kind of the forces that drove what happened have not in any way faded.
HAYES: A lot of those folks are in better shape with a go home message three hours earlier than it came. Rosalind Helderman, part of that great team of the Washington Post, thank you very much.
HELDERMAN: Thanks for having me.
HAYES: Coming up, will a Supreme Court side with abortion providers after hearing new arguments against the near-total ban in Texas. We`ll play you exactly what they said talk to a plaintiff in the case just ahead.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The United States, the world`s biggest polluter insisted that no caps be placed on emissions of carbon dioxide, the gas that contributes most to the greenhouse effect. Critics say the waters down treaty is a tragic failed opportunity to reduce the threat of global warming.
GEORGE H.W. BUSH, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: America`s record on environmental protection is second to none. So, I did not come here to apologize. We come to press on with deliberate purpose and forceful action.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: It was almost 30 years ago in Rio de Janeiro that world leaders first created a framework to begin fighting global warming collectively. The maddening irony, or course, and I mean truly maddening is had stronger action been taken back then, we would be in better shape today, far less warming, less CO2 in the atmosphere, and less drastic measures needed to counter it.
That President you saw there, George H.W. Bush signed that framework in Rio, but his defense of the environmental record set the tone for a lot of American leadership on this issue if you can call it that. Essentially being an obstacle, what needs to be done to control climate change and spending a lot of time blaming other people.
It`s an attitude shown, particularly firstly under Republican presidents. It was true under George W. Bush, who you may remember removed us from the Kyoto Protocol, which was a collective agreement at the time. It`s also true under Donald Trump who removed us from the Paris Climate Agreement.
Tonight, Joe Biden is in Glasgow, Scotland for the latest version of this same summit. Now, he already reentered the US and the Paris agreement to curb emissions. And he`s a rare opportunity to actually exert some form of U.S. leadership on this issue as Congress is poised to possibly approve the largest climate investment ever.
And every time we`re on the cusp of one of these moments, every time there`s something like Paris or Glasgow, there`s a bit of a Groundhog Day quality to it. The recurring, we`re headed towards catastrophic warming, the windows closing, we must act now or we`ll miss it, followed by business as usual and if you`re me, lots of despair.
But there`s something different this time, thanks to how much the technological picture has changed. We`ve reached a point where business as usual warning projection is now considerably improved from what it was before the Paris summit back in 2015.
Now, that doesn`t mean that countries have gotten serious, or that anyone, frankly, is hitting their previous pledges on lowering emissions. It just means that the availability and cost of clean energy has improved so much that even if nothing changes, our trajectory has shifted.
In 2014, the rolls headed towards a truly catastrophic warming of between 3.6 and 4.2 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. You see it here represented by that long-rising red band. And that level of warming is just entirely incompatible with sustaining modern civilization, human life on the planet in the way that we know it.
Now, it looks to be headed between 2.7 and 3.1 degrees Celsius, that orange band there. You can see how it`s lower than before Paris. Again, that is not at all a future we won. It is in many ways, catastrophic. But notice that we`ve moved the pathway in the right direction. It shows we can bend the warming curve, and that a lot of technological change is happening in our favor as a human species, some wind at our backs finally, especially if we can all get it together on the political front.
That will be of course the big question that hangs over the Glasgow summit. The only other thing because we saw us when it comes to fighting climate change is that we do have a president who really does seem to understand just what`s at stake at a moment when having his predecessor in office at that conference would have been a world-historical disaster.
HAYES: Most Americans through most of Americans` history never actually got to hear the arguments put before the most powerful court in the country. It was not until October of 1965 the Supreme Court of the United States began taping the oral arguments which were then preserved by the national archives.
And you used to have to wait until the beginning of the next term to get the audio recordings. And that finally changed from 2010. The courts still won`t allow video cameras but today, for the first time, the court live- streamed audio of in-person arguments online giving millions of people the opportunity to listen in real time as the nation`s highest court for arguments over SB8, the unprecedented Texas law that bans abortions after six weeks, but crucially outsources the enforcement of it to random citizens who can sue people for abortions and collect a bounty.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NEIL GORSUCH, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, U.S. SUPREME COURT: There are laws, defamation laws, gun control laws, rules during the pandemic about the exercise of religion that discouraged and chill the exercise of constitutionally protected liberties.
MARC HEARRON, ATTORNEY: Yes, and --
GORSUCH: And that they can only be challenged after the fact.
ELENA KAGAN, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, U.S. SUPREME COURT: The fact that after all these many years, some geniuses came up with a way to evade the commands of that decision, as well as the command that the broader -- the even broader principle that states are not to nullify federal constitutional rights and to say, oh, we`ve never seen this before, so we can`t do anything about it. I guess I just don`t understand the argument.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Amy Hagstrom Miller is the founder and CEO of Whole Woman`s Health, the organization challenging the Texas abortion ban at the Supreme Court. Melissa Murray is a Professor of Constitutional Law at New York University. She clerked for Justice Sonia Sotomayor in the Second Circuit, and she`s a co-host of the legal podcast Strict Scrutiny, along with Leah Litman and my wife Kate Shaw, full disclosure.
All right. Amy, I want to get to you in a second for sort of reading of what`s happening on the ground in Texas. And Melissa, just to sort of start with where things stand today. So, this argument wasn`t about whether the law itself can rise or fall. It was an argument about whether the Supreme Court has the power to temporarily halt the enforcement of the law because the U.S. Justice Department sued Texas saying this scheme you`ve come up with to deny a constitutional right but outsourcing enforcement to private citizens, you think is super clever, but we can still stop you from doing it basically, is my understanding. Is that a roughly correct characterization?
MELISSA MURRAY, PROFESSOR, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Roughly correct. There are actually two suits that were being heard today before the court, one brought by the abortion providers against state court judges, county clerks, the state AG, and the other brought by the United States Department of Justice against Texas. But they all go to this central question, can this be in federal court? Is there a way for individuals to sue the state such that they can deal with the enforcement of this law because the law`s novel procedural mechanism actually delegates its enforcement to private citizens.
So, this was a purely jurisdictional hearing trying to determine if the individuals who had been named in these lawsuits were the appropriate defendants in the case of the abortion providers, and in the case of the United States versus Texas, whether the United States could sue a sovereign state or whether that was impermissible.
But nonetheless, it`s a really important argument because both of these questions go to the broader existential question of what does the United States Supreme Court have to say when a state goes rogue and decides to completely defies the court`s precedents?
HAYES: Yes. And that was -- a lot of the argumentation was, look, if you got a constitutional right, and you come up with some crafty scheme to deny it, we can still see what you`re doing. And I mean, this was the Kagan argument and maybe stop you from doing it. And Amy, for you, I mean, the kind of novel jurisdictional question here relates directly to the work you do, because the whole thing was crafted in this way to avoid an injunction to shut down abortion providers in the state of Texas and keep them shut down as long as possible, to basically bleed you dry, to make it impossible for you to stay in business and continue providing health care for women. What effect has it had?
AMY HAGSTROM MILLER, FOUNDER AND CEO, WHOLE WOMAN`S HEALTH: You know, the effect has been devastating, Chris. And you`re right. It`s there to block access, it`s there to make it more difficult for us to provide. It`s there to threaten and intimidate and surveil people who provide abortion and anybody who helps somebody seek an abortion. But also, it is unprecedented in the way it`s just like taking the government and elected officials off the hook and putting the hands of enforcement into the vigilantes, into the people who are out on the sidewalk who intimidate and threaten and harass us constantly.
And let`s be clear, the effect that it`s had the most is on the people of Texas who deserve access to safe abortion care, who`ve been denied that access, who have been told they can`t get the health care they need in their community and in their state. And they either have to be forced to continue a pregnancy against their will, or they`re expected to travel to another state surrounding Texas. And that`s just unacceptable.
HAYES: Yes, there was -- the Texas Policy Evaluation Project tried to run some numbers here. They found a 50 percent decline in abortions in the state of Texas, which in some ways is even -- is less of a drop than I might have predicted given the nature of the law. But of course, the goal to stop the provision of abortion, the goal to overturn ultimately Roe v. Wade and Casey which is the later case, that hangs over all this.
In a certain point, Justice Alito today, Melissa, kind of named the elephant in the room in sort of an interesting way basically saying, what does all this matter if we`re just going to overturn Roe anyway? Take a listen to what he had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SAMUEL ALITO, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, U.S. SUPREME COURT: If some abortions have been chilled, is there any way to determine the degree to which then is the result of the potential for SB8 suits from the degree to which it is attributable to the fear of liability if Row or Casey is altered?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: I mean, first of all, let me just -- actually, let me just go to you first, Amy, since that`s a hypothetical about a thing that you can give a straightforward answer to. It`s clearly SB8, right?
MILLER: Yes, Roe hasn`t fallen in Texas. Roe is still the law of the land. SB8 is just tangling up people`s access to abortion and threatening and intimidating people from providing the care. And everybody knows the six- week ban is unconstitutional. Even the Fifth Circuit acknowledged the six- week ban is unconstitutional.
They`re getting tied up with a legal mumbo jumbo. But what`s most important for us to look at is the impact it`s having to communities, to families on the ground in Texas. 10 percent of people in this country of reproductive age live in Texas. This is a huge impact for all of us across the country.
HAYES: So, Melissa, what do you make of Alito saying that?
MURRAY: Well, I seemed to be tipping his hand a little bit and maybe saying the quiet part out loud. I mean, you certainly know that Justice Alito, along with Justice Thomas and possibly Justice Gorsuch are staunch in their antipathy for abortion rights. And I think Justice Alito may have been giving us a preview of what we`ll hear in the oral arguments just a month from now in jobs versus Jackson Women`s Health Organization, which is the challenge the Mississippi 15-week abortion ban.
HAYES: Amy Hagstrom Miller and Melissa Murray, that was great. Thank you both. I appreciate it.
MILLER: Thank you, Chris.
HAYES: That does it for ALL IN on this Monday evening. "THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW" starts right now. Good evening, Rachel.
RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, Chris. Am I going to see you in person tomorrow when we`re all doing election coverage?
HAYES: We`re going to be hanging in person. It`s very, very exciting. This is alarm.