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

Transcript: All In with Chris Hayes, 11/17/21

Guests: Jackie Speier, Sheila Jackson Lee, Elie Mystal, Maya Wiley, Tom Jackman, Beth Macy


The Members of the House took up the question of whether to censure Republican Paul Gosar of Arizona for posting a video that showed a photoshopped animation of him killing his Democratic colleague Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and attacking President Joe Biden. There`s a lot of back and forth between the prosecution and the defense as the jury deliberated as the defense accused the prosecution of keeping a high-quality video of the incident from them. Jacob Chansley today received a 41-month sentence for his actions during the insurrection. From April 2020 to April 2021, 100,306 Americans died from a drug overdose.


JOY REID, MSNBC HOST: As well, we should all be -- we should just be praying for that family. Governor Stitt, if you are watching this or you get a clip of this, you can easily show mercy to this young man. Let him fight for his freedom. My God, we have to be better than this at some point in our history. Mara Schiavocampo, thank you.


And that`s tonight`s REIDOUT. "ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES" starts now.


CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST (voiceover): Tonight on ALL IN.

REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D-NY): Issuing a depiction of murdering a member of Congress is wrong.

HAYES: A far-right congressman faces punishment in the House.

CORTEZ: What is so hard? What is so hard about saying that this is wrong?

HAYES: Tonight, the Paul Gosar vote and the rising tide of political violence and violent threats in America.

Then, why the so-called QAnon Shaman had the book thrown at him at his sentencing hearing today.

Plus, as Rittenhouse deliberations continue, can we talk about this judge for a minute?

BRUCE SCHROEDER, JUDGE, KENOSHA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT: But what do they talk about -- optics nowadays, is that the word for things? That was a bad optic, I thought.

HAYES: Then surprising new job growth revisions. Shipping containers finally moving out of ports. Why there`s genuine good news about America`s booming economic recovery when ALL IN starts right now.


HAYES (on camera): Good evening from New York, I`m Chris Hayes. Article 1 Section 6 of the U.S. Constitution immunizes members of Congress for the things they say on the House -- the floor of the House or Senate. "The senators and representatives for any speech or debate in either house shall not be questioned in any other place."

They cannot be questioned in court or by the president for example. That`s called the Speech and Debate Clause. And the founders included the Speech and Debate Clause because they recognized how important it is for members of Congress to be able to speak freely, especially in arguments or in the course of legislative affairs and democratic conflicts, speech and debate are at the center of what it means to be a member of Congress. It`s what they do.

And sometimes it gets nasty not just in the year 2021, not just in our time. The Founders knew that. Things got very, very nasty between them all the time. Now, more broadly, outside of those congressional chambers, of course, we in constitutional law in an American society, we`ve got a distinction between speech which is rightly protected by the First Amendment, and then all kinds of actions particularly violence which of course are not.

There`s a middle space between those two between speech and action, between speech and violence, and that is speech that hints at violence or flirts with it or threatens or incites it. And there`s a whole complex set of legal questions and jurisprudence about the nature of that speech. But putting that aside, just talking as citizens, I think we can all agree that a civic culture in which prominent mainstream politicians are constantly engaging in that kind of speech, is not a healthy one.

A culture where prominent political leaders are constantly fantasizing about the use of violence against their political enemies or sharing cartoon versions of violence against their foes are not great for American democracy. And that was the subject of debate on the House floor today.

The Members of the House took up the question of whether to censure Republican Paul Gosar of Arizona for posting a video that showed a photoshopped animation of him killing his Democratic colleague Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and attacking President Joe Biden.

During the debate before that resolution passed stripping Gosar as well of his committee assignments, the subject of that anime film that was posted, Alexandre Ocasio-Cortez from New York stood up to lay out the broader case of just how dangerous this all is.


CORTEZ: It is a sad day in which a member who leads a political party in the United States of America cannot bring themselves to say that issuing a depiction of murdering a member of Congress is wrong. And instead, decides to venture off into a tangent about gas prices and inflation. What is so hard? What is so hard about saying that this is wrong?

Our work here matters. Our example matters. There is meaning in our service and as leaders in this country. When we incite violence with depictions against our colleagues, that trickles down into violence in this country. And that is where we must draw the line independent of party, identity, or belief.



HAYES: Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was not alone. Other members also rose to speak about the increasing threats they have faced recently.


REP. JACKIE SPEIER (D-CA): I am a victim of violence. I know what it`s like. I also was in the gallery clamoring for life when the shots rang out in the Speaker`s Lobby. Violence against women in politics is a global phenomenon. A 2016 survey by the Inter-Parliamentary Union found that 82 percent of woman parliamentarians have experienced psychological violence. And 44 percent have received threats of death, rape, beatings, or abduction.

The intent of these online threats against women is clear, silence them, strip them of their power, and discourage them from running for office.


HAYES: Congresswoman Jackie Speier of California is also the sponsor of the resolution to censor Paul Gosar. She will be joining me alongside the co- sponsor of the resolution, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas in just a bit.

But threats and violence are as best we can tell becoming more commonplace in politics. In a recent New York Times piece, Debbie Dingell, a Democrat from Michigan said she was threatened by men with assault weapons outside her home last year after she was denounced by Tucker Carlson on his Fox News show.

She also shared a portion of a voicemail one of hundreds of threats she`s received saying, "They ought to try you for treason. I hope your family dies in front of you. I pray to God that if you`ve gotten any children, they die in your face."

Earlier this year, the Capitol Police backed up with data what has seemed to be anecdotally the case which is that there has been a 107 increase a doubling in the threats against Members year over year compared to 2020, a doubling. And of course, threats, people leaving voicemails, showing up outside your home, showing up with guns in the Michigan statehouse as they did last year quite famously.

It`s not all abstract. I mean, now it comes in the aftermath of January 6th. The day that Paul Gosar sent this tweet saying Joe Biden should concede and threatening, don`t make me come over here with a picture of the mob. And of course, that was the day that thousands of rioters descended on the Capitol, both threatening violence against measurers and even then-Vice President Mike Pence, and also engaging in violence against police officers.

They brought a noose, they displayed on a gallows, and they chanted hang Mike Pence, not you know, as a joke as far as we know. The threat of violence was everywhere that day. What do you think is the semantic purpose of the construction of a gallows outside a place?

Just listen to this clip of the mob stalking the halls looking for Speaker Nancy Pelosi.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Where are you, Nancy? We`re looking for you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Nancy! Oh, Nancy! Nancy!


HAYES: What do you think they would have done if they had found her? What`s implied in that, Nancy? Do you think they want to meet her? Over the past several years, this threat of violence has seeped into political rhetoric on the right much more broadly. There was this. This is one. I`m picking essentially at random, this menacing statement from Matt Gaetz of Florida who was angry about social networks allegedly censuring conservatives earlier this year.


REP. MATT GAETZ (R-FL): Silicon Valley can`t cancel this movement or this rally or this congressman. We have a Second Amendment in this country, and I think we have an obligation to use it.


HAYES: What`s that mean? What`s it mean you have a Second Amendment? You`re going to shoot Twitter? Marjorie Taylor-Greene of Georgia, she`s -- this is sort of par for the course, made all sorts of disturbing threats. Like, there was this image she posted on Facebook last year, posing with a big gun next to pictures of Democrats Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib, captioning Squad`s worst nightmare. This -- that kind of iconography, the conservative politician with the big gun, that`s everywhere.

I mean, you can pull up primary Republican ads at random right now. And the flirtation with the endorsements of political violence is increasingly mainstream among conservative Republicans. And it`s not good. And my thinking about that, aside from common sense, is informed by a book I read about the period leading up to the civil war. It`s by historian Joanne Freeman, and it`s an incredible book. And she documents this period. It`s called The Field of Blood.

And in it, painstakingly, it took her about ten years to write it, she tracks how often debates in Congress about slavery became heated and then passed heat on how often there were threats, explicit threats of duels and violence and even actual violence.


The most famous, of course, the caning of Senator Charles Sumner which took place in the Senate Chamber in 1856 after he criticized slave holders.

But even before that caning and amidst that time, the specter of violence loomed the rhetoric of it. And all of that represented the breakdown in the Democratic culture of the nation as it moved towards the cataclysm of war on behalf of the slavers. We`re at a very different place right now, very different place, thankfully, but the lesson there is important.

There is every reason in the world to take this stuff seriously and to be alarmed by it. Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez is right. It`s wrong. It`s wrong. We should be concerned about what it means. In terms of the safety Members of Congress, sure, the nature of the modern Republican Party, but what it means for the very health of American democracy at this moment?

Congresswoman Jackie Speier is a Democrat representing California`s 14th Congressional District. She introduced today`s resolution censuring Congressman Paul Gosar. And Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee is a Democrat representing Texas` 18th Congressional District. She was co-sponsor of the revolution -- resolution.

Congresswoman Speier, let me just start with you because we played the clip of you mentioning that you had been victim of violence, you had witness violence firsthand, and people may know this story but it might be worthwhile if you just talking about that experience and how that informed how you think about the resolution you introduced on the floor of the Capitol today.

SPEIER: Thank you, Chris, for having us on. I was shot five times and left for dead in the jungles of Guyana when I was an aid to Congressman Leo Ryan who was assassinated because Jim Jones and his cult chose to take the action they did. Having said that, there is someone who`s just been convicted in California for having sent me a number of postcards saying he wanted to put a bullet in my head.

This is the kind of conduct that we have got to shut down. And this resolution was important because we have to draw a red line in the conduct of members when they are suggesting that they murder a colleague. So, censure was absolutely appropriate in this set of circumstances.

HAYES: Congresswoman Jackson Lee, the argument to the extent there was -- I don`t think there was much affirmative defense of it, although Paul Gosar just retweeted someone retweeting it so I don`t think he`s too torn up about it. But mostly, what the reaction from Republicans, and there were only two Republicans that voted in favor of this, Congresswoman Cheney and Congressman Kinzinger was hey, this was a dumb -- it was dumb.

It was dumb, he shouldn`t have done it, it was a dumb joke, it`s a cartoon, not that big a deal. What do you say to that? Why did you vote for the resolution?

REP. SHEILA JACKSON LEE (D-TX): First of all, Chris, thank you for having us. I`m delighted to be here with my very heroic and very special colleague Congressman Speier. Let me be very clear. We live in a violent world and a violent time. And Paul -- Congressman Gosar has lived in that violent time with his words. He was on stage on January 6, one of the most violent moments in American history. He has offered no apologies for his actions and provoking of that day.

We started the year violently. This is a time when members are being attacked by words and yes by deeds violently. And so, this was not a partisan effort. It was not a political effort. It is really life-saving because what this congressman was doing was showing and promoting the killing of a Member of Congress and the assaulting and potential killing of the President of the United States.

I thought enough was enough. That it was important to save a life. Because frankly, after three million views, he said he took it down. Three million views. Who knows who`s provoked to believe that Paul Gosar is telling the truth, but not only telling the truth, is giving a clarion call to action to kill the Member of Congress or Members of Congress as have already been indicated, or the President of the United States.

I thought it was imperative that we indicate this is unacceptable behavior for a Member of Congress. He needed to be censored.

HAYES: Let me ask you both just in turn. I`ll share with you, Congresswoman Speier. How long have you served in Congress, Congresswoman Speier?

SPEIER: 13 years.

HAYES: 13 years. And Congresswoman Jackson Lee, how long have you served?

JACKSON LEE: 26 years.

HAYES: OK, so you`ve both been in Congress for a while. And I want to go to you Congresswoman Speier, and then Jackson Lee because it does seem to me that there`s a question of what`s the background conditions and what`s changed. And you know, I think that probably as long as there`s been voicemail and mail, you`ve gotten nasty voicemails, you`ve gotten nasty mail. And as I`ve often said on this show, you know, being rude to an elected member is kind of your God-given right as an American. It`s part of a free society. That`s -- and that`s how it should be honestly in a democracy.

But threats are different -- a different category. And have you seen both of you in your time -- is it worse now? Do you personally feel and see an uptick in that kind of communication in the kinds of threats that someone was just for instance convicted of Congresswoman Speier. Have you seen an uptick?


SPEIR: No question about it. It`s a combination of Donald Trump`s presidency and the use of social media to bring people together of like minds. I`ve seen it happen to my staff much more. They are being trashed both in word and deed. And it is something that once you are allowing people to incite violence, you are going to beget violence. And that`s why Congressman Gosar had to be censured today.

HAYES: How about you, Congresswoman Jackson Lee?

JACKSON LEE: Chris, violence is on speed dial. I`ve seen an exponential increase in violence. But here`s the difference, violence by Members of Congress. We didn`t even mention to you that metal detectors were put up around the House floor for the potential of members who were bringing guns on the floor of the House after January 6.

It`s OK to use the First Amendment. We sign up for a job that is the people`s house. We expect to be called out in restaurants or maybe on streets or attack for our policies, but we don`t expect to have a member who is stoking the fires of violence in the context not only of President Trump who have spent four years of violently attacking various Members of Congress. And these are women of color as well that makes it even worse.

I talked to police officers on January 6, meaning in the aftermath, and all of them were abused. But Black officers made it very clear that there were racial epithets thrown at them. So, it is heightened. And the thing I say to Paul Gosar and to Leader McCarthy who as you well know, 30 of us sent a letter to him begging for him to make a public statement about this violent rhetoric or conversation, is that if you don`t stop it, then someone like the January 6 defendants will think that you`ve called them to action. And who knows who will be the victim of that call.

HAYES: Congresswoman Jackie Speier, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, thank you both for your time tonight.

SPEIER: Thank you.

JACKSON LEE: Thank you for having us.

HAYES: The jury in the murder trial of Kyle Rittenhouse wrapped up its second day of deliberations just a few hours ago. They have gone, well, to their sequestered location. Despite there being no verdict yet, there was still a lot of action in the courtroom today.

Next, why the defense attorneys are calling for a mistrial and maybe the question in everyone`s mind is what exactly is a deal with that judge? Stick around. We`ll be right back.



HAYES: We have just finished day two of jury deliberation in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse. There`s a lot of back and forth between the prosecution and the defense as the jury deliberated as the defense accused the prosecution of keeping a high-quality video of the incident from them. And the prosecution pointed out that Rittenhouse`s original attorney was specifically -- has specifically referenced that video in an appearance on Fox News.

The defense requested a mistrial with prejudice which means Rittenhouse could not be tried again. But the judge has not ruled on that yet. Now, this is a case that all of America has been able to see second by second thanks to the cameras in the courtroom. We`ve all gotten to know this judge, Bruce Schroeder, who I got to say has been a kind of an odd duck.

He`s been on the bench since 1983. He has the rare reputation as being pro- defendant. One criminal defense lawyer who has appeared before Schroeder quote hundreds of times told the Washington Post "I`d say he`s more pro- defense than pro-prosecution in trial. The rulings he has made so far are consistent with what he has done in the past.

Schroeder began the trial by refusing to allow the people Rittenhouse shot to be referred to as victims. He refused to allow prosecutors to show video of Rittenhouse watching people leave a CVS before the shootings. As The Nation`s Elie Mystal points out, he calls them looters and says that he wishes he had a gun to shoot them. That was left out.

At one point during the trial, the entire court was treated to the musical stylings of judge Schroeder`s ringtone.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And if the court makes a finding that the actions that I had talked about -- we`re done in bad faith.


HAYES: Yes, wow, embarrassing and cringy for anyone. Yes, that was God Bless the USA a Lee Greenwood staple that I unironically love, but also just context, often heard at Republican political rallies, most famously those of Donald Trump.

The judge also allowed Kyle Rittenhouse, the defendant accused of killing two people and wounding another, to personally select the names of the jurors who would decide his case by picking them out of a number. NBC News asked several legal experts about this and none could remember seeing the process done this way.

And then, today, after getting criticized for this decision, Judge Schroeder offered a bizarre explanation of the policy referring to a case he presided over several decades ago.


SCHROEDER: It was a big case. I think it was a murder case but I`m not sure. And there were -- there was a Black defendant and there were 13 jurors, one of whom was Black. And when the clerk, the clerk, the government official drew the name out of the tumbler, it was a Black, the Black. There was nothing wrong with it. It was all OK, but what do they talk about -- optics nowadays -- is that the word for things? That was a bad optic I thought.


HAYES: What on earth? It was a bad optic the Black government clerk picked the Black juror. So, Judge Schroeder likes the optics of Kyle Rittenhouse doing his own jury selection. He is apparently totally OK, like lounging next to the defendant as the attorneys for both sides debate evidence in the trial.

I mean, I have to say, given the racial dynamics at play here as enunciated at least in Mr. Schroeder`s recollection, when you watch all this happen, if you`ve been in the courtrooms as white judges have ruled on the assembly line of Black and Latino defendants just rolling before them, it is very hard to imagine this judge in that same possession if the defendant was a person of color in this case.


Joining me now, the aforementioned Elie Mystal, Justice Correspondent for The Nation where he recently hoped -- I hope -- wrote, I Hope Everyone is Prepared for Kyle Rittenhouse To Go Free. And Maya Wiley, civil rights attorney, former council of New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, and a former assistant U.S. attorney.

Elie, let me start with you because I`ve been reading your writing on this. I think everyone who has paid attention the case has found the judge, as the kids say, extra. What is your -- what is your impression of him?

ELIE MYSTAL, JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT, THE NATION: I told you about that judge. I told you about that judge before the trial was over -- before the trial started. And it`s not because I have a crystal ball. It`s because i watched what he did. And what he did was be biased towards Rittenhouse at every stage of this trial, at every pre-trial motion, obviously carrying on now through the trial.

Here`s my problem with this argument, this new argument that like oh, actually, he`s just pro-defense and this is all normal. No, no, no, it isn`t normal. This is not what most judges do. And it`s not because they`re pro-defense or pro-prosecution it`s because the consistency of his decisions are all one way.

And see, that`s the thing. If you -- if you want to explain this judge, it`s not just about explaining any one individual decision which you can kind of take out of context and say like oh, OK, that might have been reasonable. It explains the totality of his -- of his decisions. And when you look at the totality of what he`s done, what you have is extreme bias in favor of the white gunman in this case which is just not something that you see every day.

HAYES: Maya, what do you think? I mean, I -- again, I don`t know this guy at all. I, like the rest of America, have been introduced to him into -- in this context. There were -- you know, to Elie`s point that in that Washington Post piece, there were defense attorneys who said, yes, he`s actually pretty pro-defense which I should note is not normally the way this goes down in criminal courtrooms for those who`ve been in criminal courts and practice criminal court, definitely not the standard.

But also to Elie`s point, it really has seemed like -- at key moment, it`s really striking. Like, which way he appears to be leaning in all this? He`s been particularly hard on the prosecution at many different moments. What do you think?

MAYA WILEY, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: Well, first of all, I think, unless I hear a defense attorneys say, well, when i had a Black defendant or a Latino defendant -- you know, Kenosha is only 10 percent Black -- he behaved exactly the same way, completely biased for the defendant. Then, I would be willing to say OK, he`s just pro-defense.

I think the two things I would point to that really for me were so deeply troubling about how he handled this trial was one, you know, obviously, just recently, when he threw that sixth count out, that weapons possession, remember, how Kyle Rittenhouse was 17 years old under Wisconsin law not allowed to open carry -- it wasn`t even in lawful possession of that semi- automatic rifle and was breaking curfew and yet he throws out that charge that says, you know, that it was a misdemeanor but literally says he was breaking the law by carrying that firearm.

That I just could not understand based on reading the statute. And on this very bizarre argument he seemed to be making for a -- for kids who are 16 and under who can open carry if they`re hunting.

HAYES: Right.

WILEY: The other point comes when, you know, frankly, as Elie points out, he says, you can`t call these folks victims, these people who are dead or injured. Now, that would not be as troubling to me if he also said you can`t just call all protesters rioters, you just can`t call all of them Antifa. If you remember, when Drew Hernandez, you know, who now works for Bannon`s shop says, you know, I`m an independent journalist and it was all these rioters and Antifa.

And as we know from the Department of Homeland Security, Antifa is not our violence problem, it`s white supremacy. And yet there was no -- when the -- when the defendant -- the prosecution tried to impeach the credibility of that witness, the judge stopped them.

HAYES: Yes, that --

WILEY: And so, those are just very proof points to I think what Elie is raising.

HAYES I will -- I will play something he said today which I think that he has been reading his own press which I will say, as a public figure, always dangerous. But he doesn`t -- he doesn`t like the feedback so he`s thinking twice about cameras here. Take a listen what he had to say.



SCHROEDER: I will tell you this. I`m going to think long and hard about live television for trial again next time. I don`t know. I`ve always been a firm believer in it because I think the people should be able to see what`s going on. But when I see what`s being done, it`s really quite frightening.


HAYES: I mean, above and beyond that there`s a real case of judge brain here, Elie, which is like -- it`s like a little like Steve Carell in the office where no one has been able to tell you like what they think of you ever in your courtroom because you have absolute power. And like, that dynamic which is a broader dynamic, I have to say of a lot of judges, as anyone who practiced in front of them will tell you was -- is very much on display here as well.

MYSTAL: Yes. I mean, look, the -- one other -- I think this is a great way of bringing -- of highlighting this point. This is a judge who wants to be the star and who`s the star in his own mind, right? He`s the star of his courtroom. He`s the king of his castle, and he`s acting like that.

Now, again, a lot of lawyers will say, like, it`s not -- it`s not unusual for a judge to be that way. But just because it`s not unusual, doesn`t make it right, doesn`t make it OK, right? Like, look, it`s not -- I`ve know people, right? It`s not unusual for some people to let their dogs lick off human plates, right? But that`s nasty. Like, we shouldn`t do that.

And just because there are a lot of people who do that, it doesn`t mean that I want to like eat at your house, right? The judge is forcing America to eat at his nasty house. And now, he`s annoyed that people are noticing the kind of usual biases that he puts in play that people are noticing and aren`t happy about it.

That that`s not a real issue. The real issue is that he is -- he is making these decisions and judgments in favor of this white gunman. Again, let`s remember. You know, Maya brought up a lot of great points. I want to add one more thing that just to me highlights just the bias in this case. He had -- on veterans day, the defense`s expert witness, Rittenhouse`s expert witness was a veteran. The judge knew that and he said, is there anybody a veteran in this courtroom? Well, of course, the -- we should get a round of -- and the jury clapped for the expert witness. You do not see that.

And so, again, if you`re going to defend the judge, you have to not just defend any one situation, but the totality of his experience.

HAYES: That was really nuts. Elie Mystal, Maya Wiley, thank you both. Maya, great to have you back.

Next, one of the most high-profile defendants in the January 6th attack was in court for sentencing today where prosecutors were seeking the longest sentence yet. We`ll tell you what happened after this.



HAYES: One of the most high-profile of the rioters in the January 6 insurrection is a man named Jacob Chansley known as the QAnon Shaman. You probably remember him. He was kind of the face of it all. He showed up at the Capitol shirtless with a furry hat with horns, a red white and blue face paint.

And after breaking into the Capitol, he ended up making it all the way to the Senate chamber and to the very chair that had recently been evacuated by then-Vice President Mike Pence. It was an indelible scene captured by New Yorker reporter Luke Mogelson


JACOB CHANSLEY, CAPITOL RIOTER: Hey, man. I`m glad to see you, guys. You guys are (BLEEP) patriots. Look at this guy. He`s got -- covered in blood. God bless you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Any chance I could get you guys to leave the Senate wing?

CHANSLEY: I`m not disrespecting the place.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK, I just want to let you guys know, this is like the sacredest place.

CHANSLEY: I know. Hey, you know what, I`m going to take it -- I`m going to take it to this chair because (BLEEP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now that you`ve done that, can I get you guys to walk out of this room please?

CHANSLEY: Yes. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I agree with you, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hey, come on, man.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I feel like you`re pushing the line.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Come on, man. Come on, man.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is our Capitol. Let`s be respectful to him. There`s four million people coming in, so there`s a lot of control. We love you guys. We love the cops.

CHANSLEY: It`s only a matter of time. Justice is coming.


HAYES: I have to say that I have covered protests where people were doing nothing illegal and wrong and were getting tear-gassed up the wazoo. And so, that`s always wild to watch that footage. And today, that guy received a 41-month sentence for his actions during the insurrection. It comes after he pleaded guilty to one felony count of obstructing an official proceeding before Congress in September.

In handing down his sentence, the judge told him, what you did was horrific, obstruction -- obstructing the functioning of government. What you did was terrible. You made yourself the epitome of the riot.

Tom Jackman is a reporter with the Washington Post who covered that sentencing today and he joins me now. Tom, tell us a little bit about the scene at that sentencing today.

TOM JACKMAN, REPORTER, THE WASHINGTON POST: Well, I got to be honest, I was not in the courtroom because they now allow you to call in and listen. So, I`m able to sit at the keyboard and write. But, you know, he gave a 30- minute speech to the judge explaining his spiritual goals, who his spiritual guides are, which are Gandhi and Jesus Christ. And this seemed to have a big impact on the judge who said to him, I think your remarks are the most remarkable that I`ve heard in 34 years.

I think you are genuine in your remorse. Parts of those remarks are akin to the kinds of things that Martin Luther King would have said. And I would have liked to seen everybody`s reaction in the courtroom when Judge Lamberth said those things.

HAYES: That`s wild. And then -- and then -- but then he gives him a 41- month sentence which is way, way more than he could have, and is also the longest sentence thus far handed out. I think, the numbers break down that there`s been about -- I think only four felony pleas or four felonies that have been sentenced, and this is tied for the longest. Is that right?

JACKMAN: That`s a -- that`s exactly right. Yes, 41 months. And somebody else who punched a cop last week, that same judge sentenced him also to 41.

HAYES: Yes. I mean --

JACKMAN: In both cases -- go ahead, Chris.

HAYES: No, you go ahead.

JACKMAN: In both cases, the range of sentencing recommended was 41 to 51 months. And in both cases, Lamberth gave them the low end of the guidelines. In both cases, their lawyers said, oh please, go lower, and the judge said no, I`m not going to go lower, but I will give you the low end of the guidelines which was 41 months in both case.


HAYES: Yes. He said, you didn`t slug anybody, but what you did here was actually obstruct the function of the whole government. I mean 41 months is a significant amount of jail time and particularly for someone who unlike some other people was not violent. It`s interesting to me that it`s tied with the guy that slugged a cop.

We also think that we`re going to see more cases ultimately that are going to end up in more jail time than this. But we`re still at the front end of the processing of this enormous cohort, isn`t that right?

JACKMAN: That`s right. And all good criminal defense lawyers know especially in federal court, you want to get in first to get the best deals. And the people that go later, and who have folks to testify against them, will do worse in terms of sentencing. And also, the people who committed more violence are still to come. This guy didn`t hit anybody.

HAYES: Tom Jackman who`s been covering this from the Washington Post, thank you very much.

JACKMAN: Welcome.

HAYES: Coming up, important news on the strength of America`s economic recovery for size of an easing supply chain crisis, and the job numbers that keep getting revised up. We`ll talk about it all after this.



HAYES: You have no doubt heard of the supply chain issues that are coming around the holiday season. Empty shells at the store, shortages of everything from poultry, to cars, to coffee cups, to turkeys. Well that has to do in part with a backlog of shipping containers at major ports.

But you might not have heard that things are actually improving on that front. For example, the rate of idle shipping containers at the massive and critical port of Los Angeles is down nearly 30 percent just since late October according to the port`s own director.

That comes after President Joe Biden announced measures focused on relieving those backlogs last month. So, that appears to have worked. At least it`s gotten better after he did it. That`s a good thing because consumer demand right now is strong. Retail giants Target and Walmart both shared strong sales numbers for the third quarter. And the companies are now saying stores will be fully stocked for the holiday shopping season and the concerns over empty shelves are greatly exaggerated.

Those are not, however, the only big scary headlines about the economy that have not actually quite worn out. Do you remember just a few months ago hearing coverage like this?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: August non-farm payrolls increase a minuscule 235,000.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Today, disappointment and a disconnect. Only 235,000 jobs created, just a third of what was expected.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I see 194,000. That is real low.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Tonight, help wanted. Just when America was expected to usher in a fall season of new hires, instead, U.S. job growth dropped to its slowest pace of the year.


HAYES: Now, to be clear, that coverage was not wrong at the time. It was the correct coverage. The August and September jobs reports are pretty dismal. We covered it as such on this show. But here`s the thing about those government numbers. They often revise them later, usually just a little bit, but that happened exactly -- that`s exactly what happened this week. And it turns out from June to September, the Bureau of Labor Statistics job estimates missed 625,000 new jobs.

That is the biggest revision since the 1970s, enormous. If that 625,000 number was its own jobs report, it would be an enormously impressive one. So, it turns out those headlines weren`t true, not actually capturing what was happening. The job market didn`t get really bad in the summer, it is roaring. The October jobs report also excellent, unemployment is low. It has dropped to 4.6 two years ahead of schedule. That`s two years faster than the Congressional Budget Office had estimated.

This is the fastest recovery right now in recent memory. Demand is high. Wages for the bottom 40 percent of workers are rising very fast. Fast enough to help overcome what is the big central problem that everyone is rightly discussing right now, inflation.

Now, if you listen to Republicans, they will tell you it is all President Biden`s fault. They went too big with the American Rescue Plan, the government spend too much, overheated the economy. But the alternative, the cost of doing too little would be catastrophic.

After the economic meltdown in 2008, the government responded with a far insufficient stimulus that did not go far enough. And monetary policy was not as accommodating. And then Republicans got in and we got austerity. And what it all added up to was so many young adults who graduated into that labor market that will see their wages lowered four decades as a result.

The answer is not doing less to help people. But here`s another problem with the Blame Biden Theory. Inflation is also up big time in the United Kingdom, more than four percent. Is that also Joe Biden`s fault? Of course not. It`s not even really Prime Minister Boris Johnson`s fault. We are coming out of a once-in-a-century pandemic where we shut down the economy in an unprecedented way, responded with an unprecedented stimulus, and no one can say for sure what the road back to a normal economy looks like.

Right now, we have a genuine problem, prices are going up too fast. That is reducing too many people`s real income. That is bad. But as Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody`s Analytics argues in a new opinion piece today, the stimulus spending is not responsible. "These factors certainly gave a boost to demand last spring, but that faded when the Delta variant gained momentum this fall. There is also no good way to connect the dots between the Build Back Better agenda and higher inflation."

Look, all of economics is about trade-offs, and policymakers have to make difficult decisions under uncertainty. But given the choice between this economy we have right now and one in which prices are low and gas is cheap and tens and tens of millions of more people are out of work, it`s an easy call. This is the better path. Do not let bad faith hysteria convince you otherwise.



HAYES: While everyone is understandably focused on the COVID crisis that has now killed more than 769,000 Americans so far, just incomprehensible, there`s another public health crisis that has been quietly unfolding across the country, killing 100,000 Americans in just 12 months.

From April 2020 to April 2021, 100,306 Americans died from a drug overdose. Now, to put that in perspective, that number is essentially unheard of. It`s up nearly 30 percent from the previous 12 months. It`s twice as many people who died from overdoses just in 2015.

According to the New York Times, it`s more than the total of car crashes and gun fatalities combined. Most of the deaths were caused by opioids and fentanyl in particular. The vast majority of these deaths, about 70 according to the Times were among men between the ages of 25 and 54. Bear in mind, these staggering numbers are just from the first 12 months of the pandemic and public health officials say the crisis has only been getting worse ever since.


Beth Macy has been covering the opioid crisis extensively in her book Dopesick which is now a major series on Hulu, has a ground`s eye view of how he got to this moment. Beth, it`s great to have you. Thank you for joining us obviously under awful circumstances in terms of these numbers.

As someone who`s covered this for a while, was this data surprising to you or were you expecting to see something like this?

BETH MACY, AUTHOR, DOPESICK: I was really expecting to see something like this. I`ve spent the last couple of years continuing to report on the opioid crisis, the overdose crisis. And from all the communities that I visited, the treatment gap looms large, Chris.

We have an 88 percent treatment gap in this country. And that means that 12 of people with OUD weren`t able to access treatment in the past year. And so, my new book is about solutions and how we have to meet them where they are.

HAYES: OK, this is an incredibly important point. I want to get into the factors here. But you and I talked about this when you were on our podcast Why Is This Happening? that when you say 88 percent, it said there are just -- there is an unbelievable scarcity of treatment beds and open treatment options for people who have opioid addiction to go get treatment for it. And that continues to be the case even as in 2016, it was a huge political issue and there was a big special president`s commission in 2017. There was some legislation that passed and yet that gap still persists.

MACY: Yes. And a lot of that money that came down which look, it was great, but we didn`t have the infrastructure in place to get the money down to the ground level with the folks that were actually doing the work to help people get better. So, a third of it just went to waste. It went back into the budget.

So, one of the things i`ve come to realize is that, you know, when you look at the data of who isn`t getting treated, the large majority, 40 percent say they don`t want to get better, OK. And that`s largely because they`ve been stigmatized before when they have tried to get better.

So, what we really need is to increase harm reduction, and that`s this idea of going to people where they are. Needle exchanges -- we know that people who visit needle exchanges don`t just get syringe -- sterile syringes, they also get fentanyl test strips so they can make sure there`s not too much fentanyl in their drugs. They can get connected to treatment.

We know that those folks that visit needle exchanges are five times more likely to enter treatment. But we -- you know, 39 states allow it. We still have 11 states that don`t allow it. We still have 12 states that haven`t passed the Medicaid expansion.

These are kind of the low-hanging fruits of how to curb our deaths of despair which continue to climb.`

HAYES: Yes. That -- it`s such an important point. Can we put that chart up again that shows the increase particularly with the fentanyl because I think there`s three ways the -- not the map, but the -- but the actual graph that shows that spike particularly with fentanyl coming up underneath. There you go.

So, when you look at that graph, and people are looking at that right now, all drugs, all opioids, I mean the thing that jumps out at you is that synthetic opioids, fentanyl are just driving a huge amount of this increase. And I guess my question to you is, is this because -- why? Why is -- why is fentanyl increased? Is it that more people are seeking it out or are they getting it and not knowing it? Is it more dangerous? Like, what is going on with that fentanyl number that is -- that is doing so much harm?

MACY: Yes. So, fentanyl is 50 to 100 times more potent than heroin. And dealers are mixing it in with their other drugs. I heard a story of a 14- year-old who died uh not long ago from a pill he bought he thought it was a xanax but it was actually fentanyl. So, a lot of these pills out there on the black market are laced with fentanyl. So, it`s very, very dangerous.

And I know the government has said, you know, we`re trying to put a lot of effort into naloxone, and that`s great. We really need to bring people who are overdosing back to life so they can have a chance to try to get better again the next day.

But with fentanyl, infecting the supply the way it is, by the time they overdose, it`s too late you know, for some, for many. This data bears that out, which is why we need to get people more access to MAT, Medication Assisted Treatments. The gold standards of care are methadone and buprenorphine. And we`re just not seeing that being offered at a scale that matches the scale of this crisis.

HAYES: Has the scale of use or addiction gone up or has this -- has the percentage of danger of people using gone up?

MACY: Percentage of danger has gone up. And again, just not enough -- not enough people out there doing the work of trying to get these people into systems of care. I mean, so these 100,000 deaths, of course, that`s not counting all the families and friends of those folks, but it`s also not counting deaths from other drug-related diseases like Hepatitis C which is skyrocketing, end-stage endocarditis.

I know a 28-year-old recently who rather than go to the hospital and be treated like crap the way she was the last time she was at the hospital, she stayed home and died of end-stage endocarditis. She was 28 years old.

HAYES: Beth Macy who`s reporting on this has been so crucial, thank you very much.

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