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

Transcript: All In with Chris Hayes, 12/28/21

Guests: Jena Griswold, Jamaal Bowman, Anthony Fauci, Faiz Shakir, Linda Chavez, Elie Mystal

Summary

Peter Navarro says he and Steve Bannon were actually behind the last-ditch coordinated effort by rogue Republicans in Congress to halt certification of the 2020 election results and keep President Donald Trump in power earlier this year, in a plan called the "Green Bay Sweep." Sen. Rand Paul endorses claim that Democrats are stealing elections by making it easier to vote. Rep. Jamaal Bowman calls on President Joe Biden to recognize January 6 as a National Day of Healing. Dr. Anthony Fauci talks on the new CDC isolation guidelines.

Transcript

[20:00:00]

BOMANI JONES, SPORTS JOURNALIST, ESPN: I can`t believe he`s handled this vaccine situation the way he has.

TIFFANY CROSS, MSNBC HOST: Yes, it`s quite baffling to see. Listen, Bomani, I want to tell you something I`m very excited about, and that is sports theory with Bomani Jones on HBO. Please promise you will come back on my show and talk about it the week it premieres. You`re going to be so dope and amazing and we`re all cheering you on. So, thank you so much for joining me this evening.

JONES: I appreciate -- I appreciate it.

CROSS: Thank you.

JONES: Thank you. Look out for it.

CROSS: That`s right. Thank you so much, Bomani. And that`s tonight`s "REIDOUT." ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES starts right now.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST: Tonight on ALL IN. Republicans against democracy. From the insurrection, to the un-American sentiments from the senator from Kentucky, the position of the party is clear, only certain types of people`s votes should count. We`ll talk to the Secretary of State trying to protect elections from Republican siege.

Then, the Jan 6 Committee prepares a public phase of the investigation. And a congressman pleads President Biden, don`t let anyone or race that day.

Plus, new confusion around the latest CDC guidance as Omicron and Delta surge. We have just the guy to help us sort it out.

And America 2021, if you thought the Person The Year was an odd pick, not until you hear who America`s most trusted leader is when ALL IN starts right now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Good evening from New York, I`m Chris Hayes. Once again, a member of Donald Trump`s inner circle is telling on themselves, confessing to their role in the ex-President`s attempted coup. A few weeks ago, it was former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. He published a memoir and turned over documents voluntarily to the January 6 Committee revealing among other things that he was involved in discussions about a scheme to stop the certification of electors for Joe Biden.

Now, the confessions are coming from Peter Navarro, a former trade advisor to them President Donald Trump. In an interview with the Daily Beast, Navarro provides new details about his role in the plan to keep Trump in power starting with not certifying the electors on January 6.

Navarro worked closely with Steve Bannon to prepare for the ploy which they called the Green Bay Sweep, and they plotted with many members of Congress. Navarro tells The Daily Beast, "We spent a lot of time lining up over 100 congressmen, including some senators. It started out perfectly. At 1:00 p.m. Gosar and Cruz did exactly what was expected of them. That was of course objecting to the counting of Arizona`s electoral votes.

Navarro admits the plan would not overturn the election on its own. But their hope was to run the clock as long as possible to increase public pressure on then-Vice President Mike Pence to send the electoral votes back to six contested states where Republican-led legislatures could try to overturn the results.

"My role was to provide the receipts for the 100 congressmen or so who would make their cases who could rely on part of the body of evidence I`d collected to lay the legal predicate for the actions to be taken."

Well, that`s kind of funny. I mean, first of all, the body of evidence was bunk. But what an amazing thing to say. The legal predicate, a remarkably forthright confession. Of course, things played out a little differently than Navarro had schemed up. Donald Trump instructed the crowd at the rally at the Ellipse to march to the Capitol, violence ensued. We all know what happened next. Although you got to say, as the crowd was violently beating cops and concussing them, and people were dying, they weren`t delaying the vote, which was the plan of Navarro and Bannon and Trump and all the rest.

And just like the scam that Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon were planning, everything leading up to and surrounding the events of January 6, again, was built on the, "legal predicate, "right, the idea of the big lie that the election was stolen, the receipts that Navarro was providing.

And the thing about that lie is that it is so broad, it really covers a really wide spectrum of beliefs. And it turns out unifying all these people is useful when you`re attempting to overturn election by having this thing called The Big Lie that people can sort of put their own details into.

So, on one end, there`s the most outrageous and fringiest wing pushing outlandish conspiracy theories. We talked about on the show and we ridicule them because they`re preposterous. They range from Italian satellites, switching votes, to a secret international cabal rigging voting machines, maybe George Soros was involved.

And many of these lies as preposterous and ludicrous as they are, as sort of cringy or funny they are, they were promoted by Donald Trump`s own attorneys, the people that Representative including Sidney Powell and Lin Wood.

SIDNEY POWELL, TRUMP CAMPAIGN LAWYER: There was and is still massive voter fraud across this country. It took all forms. It was not just the Dominion machines. We have experts and a witness who have explained to us that the fraud exists in the DNA of all the software that was run by any voting system in the country.

LIN WOOD, LAWYER FOR DONALD TRUMP: I`ve challenged Governor Kim to step up in front of the people, put his hand on this Bible, and tell us that he did not take money from China. He did. So did Brad Raffensperger.

[20:05:05]

POWELL: We`ve already traced a lot of the money that did this back to China. We have internet White Hat hackers, I think they call them, who saw backdoors open in the system and saw people in Iran and China and Hong Kong and Serbia, and I don`t know how many countries having influence in our election system.

WOOD: We`re going to send that message to George Soros. Get out of our country, George Soros.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: OK, I should say, just to be clear, to the extent that there are fact checkable claims there, it`s all bunk lies, delusion, ridiculous. None of it is true, none of it, OK. I should also tell you the company that makes those voting machines that Sidney Powell mentioned called Dominion voting systems is suing her for defamation.

Now, when those truly wild conspiracy theories did not quite catch on, they were getting laughed out of court, of course, left and right, Donald Trump and his allies turned their attention to actual poll workers. They were the ones that were stealing the election. And one of the most prominent cases involves a Georgia woman named Ruby Freeman and her daughter, Shaye Moss, who both worked in the Fulton County election office last year.

Now, Freeman and Moss became the targets of a slew of false accusations from their former president and his supporters who claimed that they manipulated votes. Another of Donald Trump`s lawyers, Rudy Giuliani, even brought them up in testimony he delivered to Georgia state lawmakers last year.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUDY GIULIANI, FORMER LAWYER TO DONALD TRUMP: After they say there`s no fraud, look at that woman. Look at her taking those ballots out. Look at them scurrying around with the ballots. Nobody in the room, hiding around. They look like this -- they look like they`re passing out dope, not just ballots. It is quite clear they`re stealing votes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: OK, again, totally untrue, all right. The video was deceptively edited to make it look like there was something sketchy, but there was no vote-stealing going on whatsoever. Again, there was an audit. They were counted and recounted and recounted, OK.

But it didn`t stop there. Donald Trump himself brought up Ruby Freeman no less than 18 times during his now-infamous phone call to Georgia Secretary of State demanding they find enough votes to overturn the election results. Trump referred to Freeman as a professional vote scammer, a hustler -- are you sensing a theme here and the way they talked about her -- and known political operative who stuffed the ballot boxes.

Now, Ruby Freeman and her daughter are suing Rudy Giuliani, a right-wing cable channel, and a far-right conspiracy website that spread the false accusations about that resulted in threats and people outside their door. And of course, that menacing visit from an emissary of the Trump campaign.

We also learned that Freeman received that threatening visit from an emissary from the Trump campaign, who happened to be a one-time publicist for hip hop artists Kanye West. The message that she delivered on January 4, just two days before the electors were to be certified, was that Freeman would "confessed to Trump`s voter fraud allegations or people would come to her home in 48 hours and she`d go to jail.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I cannot say what specifically will take place. I just know that it will disrupt your freedom and the freedom of one or more of your family members.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Ruby Freeman, of course, to her tremendous credit, did not give in. She said the devil is a liar. She`d have to think about it. So, you`ve got these crazy conspiracy theories, right? They`re all over the internet and the right-wingers are sharing them. The President is getting them. Oh, it`s the Italian satellite, no, it`s George Soros, no, it`s the Dominion machine, no, it`s Hugo Chavez, no, it`s the Serbians. No, it`s the ballot stuffers, right?

All of that was ludicrous on its face, but also kind of embarrassing for everyone involved, in fact, has created legal liability for some of the people pushing those claims. But then there was the laundered version of it, all right. And it`s important to see this. There was a more, let`s say, gentlemanly arm of the big lie. And that was pioneered by Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri and Ted Cruz of Texas.

Now, they went sort of wink-wink, nudge-nudge at these stuff, but they weren`t getting up saying oh, the ghost of Hugo Chavez changed your votes in Fulton County, no. What they claimed was that the states were wrong to expand access to voting in the midst of a once-in-a-century pandemic. And that measures enacted to keep voters safe from a wildly infectious disease for which there was no vaccine, like increased absentee voting were in fact improper and in fact, unconstitutional efforts to steal the election from Donald Trump.

That was the pretext, the more sophisticated version they dressed up the big lie on which they hung their objections to the electoral vote and their votes for what was effectively a coup. The same goal as Peter Navarro and Lin Wood and Sidney Powell and Donald Trump. They`re all marching in line, they just have different articulations.

But now we get one of the most honest articulations of the most -- the expansiveness of The Big Lie, and that comes courtesy of Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul. So, yesterday he tweeted this endorsement of a piece from the American conservative alleging that left-wing interests unfairly secured the race in Wisconsin for Joe Biden.

And Senator Paul cites their argument for how that election was stolen, how to steal an election, he says. And I`m going to quote how it was stolen. "Seeding an area heavy with potential Democratic votes with as many absentee ballots as possible, targeting and convincing potential voters to complete them in a legally valid way, and then harvesting and counting the results."

[20:10:24]

Do you see what that language is doing there, convincing them to complete the ballot? That`s just convincing people persuading them to vote, to vote for the person you want to vote them for. And then harvesting them, that`s just collecting them and having to go in in a legal way. That`s just the mechanism of voting. In other words, completely legal methods of increasing turnout, again, amidst a pandemic that has now killed 830,000 Americans, a pandemic that at the time was ravaging many areas that were -- what`s the phrase they use -- heavy with potential Democratic votes.

Of course, heavily Democratic is often just code for a lot of not white people. And so, I got to tip my cap to Rand Paul and the American conservative because it gets to the core point of the Big Lie. Here it is all on the page. It`s not crazy stories about Hugo Chavez, the Italian satellites, or someone stuffing a ballot. No, no, no. Whatever the justification there are, the lie is there to backfill the fundamental uniting principle of the coup, and the supporters of the coup, and the collaborators, and frankly, most the Republican Party based on well, the way they voted on January 6 in the House at polling.

And that principle that brings them all together, whatever ridiculous factual stipulations they make, is that they believe it is illegitimate for the wrong kinds of people to vote in large numbers, and for the wrong kinds of people to have a majority and for the wrong kinds of people to vote in representatives to run the government. Anything those wrong people do heavily Democratic areas is illegitimate by default and by definition. And so, because they won, they by definition stole the election from Donald Trump.

Jena Griswold is Secretary of State of Colorado. Her job was to oversee the 2020 presidential election. And she`s been sounding the alarm about future attempts to steal the elections. She`s also the chair of the Democratic Association of Secretaries of State, and she joins me now.

I want to first just get your reaction to a member of the United States Senate using the phrase, how to steal the -- an election in regards to what was essentially a voter turnout operation of voter education operation, an attempt to get absentee ballots in the hands of people needed it? Like, what does it do to your democracy of someone that powerful and prominent is calling that stealing?

JENA GRISWOLD, SECRETARY OF STATE, COLORADO: Well, thanks for having me on, Chris. Happy Holidays! I wish it was on a happier topic. But what Senator Paul is doing is saying the quiet part loud. They don`t want certain people to vote. And that`s what extreme elected officials have been laying the groundwork for the last two years and it`s dangerous.

Having U.S. senators, having former president spout lies and gaslight the American people make it easier to pass voter suppression, make it easier to install insiders, people who do not believe in democracy, in election administration. And frankly, it could make it easier the next time they try another January 6.

HAYES: We`ve now got polling I think out today that shows a majority of Republicans saying they don`t believe that Biden was legitimately elected. I think that`s the phrase used in the polling. It has become increasingly canon. It`s become a litmus test issue for folks that are running. I don`t know what your possible opponent or opponents might say on this issue and the votes of the voters of Colorado.

But I guess the question is, how do you unwind that now that it just become -- they have succeeded in sort of propagandizing this lie?

GRISWOLD: Well, we have to continue to push back. For the last two years, these extreme Republicans have been spreading lies and using legal avenues to suppress the right to vote. Since the beginning of this year, we`ve seen 500 bills to take away Americans` freedom to vote, 120 bills to subvert the vote, insider threats, fake audits, death threats to election officials, and it`s going on and on and on.

There`s a couple of things that we have to do. Number one, demand that the U.S. Senate pass voting reform and safeguard American democracy. But number two, as you mentioned, we are seeing this play out in Secretary of State`s races including in mind where you have people who deny the 2020 election now running for secretary of state. That`s like putting an arsonist in charge of the fire department.

So, voters will also have a really big job in 2022. And that`s making sure that we elect people to oversee elections who believe In democracy and upholding the will of the people regardless if they like the outcome of elections.

[20:15:06]

HAYES: Yes, that part about liking the outcome of election. I mean, to me, that`s also a key part here. You know, there are I`m sure lots of people, if you give them a lie detector test, they will say they believed all the nonsense they were being -- that was being flung at them, and that Ruby Freeman and her daughter were stuffing ballots.

But like, you know, the complaints about absentee balloting, for instance, like they somehow went away in the aftermath of the Virginia gubernatorial election despite the fact that the exact same rules were in place as they had been a year earlier in the pandemic. And all of a sudden, like all those complaints disappeared. And the point is that like they don`t like the person that won is the problem. Like, that`s fundamentally what it`s about.

GRISWOLD: That`s exactly right. And not only in Virginia, look towards Colorado. Prior to 2020, more Republican voters used a mail ballot than Democrats and two out of three general elections. Mail ballots don`t help one side or the other. They help American -- the American people choose their elected officials. And that`s what these extremists want to take away.

So, I think it`s incredibly troubling what`s happening. Elected officials should not lie. You know, Senator Paul very clearly does not believe in the right to vote for all eligible Americans. That goes to the very foundation of our democracy. So, we are seeing the worst attack on democracy in recent history. And it`s incumbent on all of us to really pay attention and demand more from elected officials, and make sure that we turn all these big liars into big losers in 2022.

HAYES: There`s legislation of course that the House has passed, the Senate could pass, that would create some federal standards, structural reforms, guarantee certain forms of access. The fate of that will be taken up in the New Year.

Colorado Secretary State Jena Griswold, thank you very much.

GRISWOLD: Thank you so much.

HAYES: Next week is the one-year anniversary of when the angry Trump mob stormed the Capitol and tried to overturn free and fair democratic election. And as that anniversary looms, The Washington Post reports the House Committee investigating that attack plans to begin holding public hearings in the New Year to tell the story of the insurrection from start to finish, while crafting an ample interim report on his findings by summer.

That presumably means that everyone can watch those hearings on TV and learn the depths of planning that went into the coup from the mob, to the members of Congress, all the way up, of course, to Donald Trump himself, which is a good thing because the right wants nothing more than for everyone just turn the page and move on.

In fact, recognizing what the violence that day is, is the subject of a letter from a Democratic Congressman Jamaal Bowman of New York to President Joe Biden, in which he calls President Biden to use executive authority to recognize January 6 as a national day of healing writing, "In less than a year since the insurrection, Republicans have already begun to rewrite the history of that painful day. A National Day of healing will help ensure that no one can erase this traumatic event in our history or the need for resources that help us individually and collectively heal."

And Congressman Jamaal Bowman Democrat of New York joins me now. Congressman, I should say full disclosure, my brother, Luke, works as a senior aid to you. I just want to make that -- make that clear for everybody watching. I sat next to you at his wedding.

Let me ask you this. Why were you -- why were you motivated to write this letter and why a day of healing?

REP. JAMAAL BOWMAN (D-NY): So, Chris, I`m going to bring it home for you because I know you`re from this area. A couple of weeks ago, we buried a 17-year-old who was murdered outside of his high school in one part of my district. And we buried another 17-year-old who died by suicide in another part of my district.

That rise in homicide, suicide, children`s mental health is happening across the country, and it`s been happening since the beginning of the school year. And you know, I`m biased as a former educator. But we have over 130,000 people dead from a pandemic, we have the trauma of the insurrection.

I`ll just take you to that day briefly. I was not in the Capitol. I was in my office. But when I went to the Capitol to finish certifying the election, I looked into the eyes of my colleagues who were in the Capitol, what I saw was terror. What I saw was horror.

So, considering the complex traumas of that day, what`s happening now, continued COVID, four years of Donald Trump, The Big Lie, tens of millions radicalized by the Big Lie, we just need to pause for a moment, take a deep breath, stop being in the rush to restart the economy and reflect on our collective mental health and well-being so that we could figure out how to move forward.

HAYES: I wasn`t expecting you to phrase that answer the way you did. But it`s been a recurring theme of mine on the show. It feels weird to state the most obvious point you could state and yet I don`t think it`s stated enough. We`re just like, obviously, people are way messed up in every direction after the last 20 months, clearly.

I mean, every indicator, social indicator you look at -- I mean, you know we`ve seen a rise in homicides, we`ve seen a rise in drug overdoses. We have 830,000 people who passed away. There`s people who are in grief. I mean -- and yet, your point about like everyone has this urge I think for normalcy or to get back to something. And there just seems like there is a lot of unrecognized trauma reverberating throughout the society in massively destructive ways.

And I don`t know if like a single day of reckoning, you know, does anything about that, but at least it`s a symbolic starting point. There`s something really to it about just like, hold up, what`s going on?

[20:20:33]

BOWMAN: Yes. I ran for office partly because the year after Trump was elected, 34 kids died within the K to 12 school system in the Bronx, and 17 died via suicide, and no one was talking about it. No one in Congress, no one in elected office that I saw was really talking about it.

And if we don`t center our mental health as a society and start governing that way and thinking of legislation in a way, we cannot build back better as a nation if we`re only talking about the health of Wall Street and the health of the Stock Market.

The reason why legislation like voting rights matter, and common-sense gun reform, and women`s reproductive health, and the George Floyd Justice and Policing, and to Build Back Better Act, the reason why those bills matter is because they help rebuild a public trust in government, and they help our collective healing and well-being as a nation.

And that is what our democracy needs, and that is what our economy needs, regardless of your Republican or Democrat.

HAYES: Yes. And it seems to me to that, it just -- it`s going to be important. And that`s going to be a very fraught day for a lot of reasons. We think the former president might be giving a speech. I know that the actual President Joe Biden will be giving a speech, folks on Capitol Hill.

It`s going to -- there`s going to be a lot of emotions on that day. Having some kind of declaration of a national day of healing strikes me is also an attempt to sort of do some unifying. I mean, obviously, there`s certain divides that can`t be stretched across, but an attempt to do that in some way, given how fractured things are also seems like it makes some sense to me.

BOWMAN: You know, reading about tens of millions of people who still believe that, you know, Biden is not a legitimate president and who are radical lacks behind that belief who have said things like, you know, I am willing to bear arms to secure -- to preserve our freedom, and hearing those comments from members of Congress. I mean, hold on a second, right?

Like, are we talking about a civil war? Are we talking about a race war? Are we talking about survival of the fittest against a global pandemic that`s killed 830,000 people, double the amount killed during World War II? Like, we`re just not having the right conversations. And we`re just trying to push through and be tough through this pandemic.

And it`s the wrong way to go about it, in my opinion. And to your point about unifying, I think healing is a unifying concept and principle, and I think it`s what the country needs. Because it`s been -- it`s been dealing with COVID and turning on the news and watching conflict happening in Congress where it looks like we`re not getting anything done because we`re at each other`s throats. So, this is the moment in time for us to do that. I think January 6 is perfect.

HAYES: All right, Congressman, Jamaal Bowman of the Bronx, thank you very much.

BOWMAN: Thank you, sir.

HAYES: We have much more to come. Dr. Anthony Fauci is here. And some late news tonight that Senator Harry Reid, the former Democratic Majority Leader has died at the age of 82. We`ll have more on that coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:25:00]

HAYES: Just today, the U.S. set a new record high for COVID cases with the seven-day average of new daily cases of over 250,000 topping the old mark set last January before vaccines were widely available, but of course before Omicron. This comes a day after the CDC updated its guidance recommending shorter isolation and quarantine time periods.

Yesterday, when that news cross is going down from 10 to five days for people who are asymptomatic, I saw an incredibly strong lack reaction both online, commentators, people I knew, people in public health. It was very polarized. Some people reacting yes, finally, it`s done, they haven`t done this earlier. Other people said no, this is catastrophic. So, the decision has inspired strong feelings and also a little bit of confusion on what the actual guidance is.

Joining me now is Dr. Anthony Fauci, the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the Chief Medical Adviser to President Joe Biden.

Dr. Fauci, let`s just start with what the actual guidance is. My understanding is it`s five days of isolation if you`re asymptomatic, but what does that mean? Like what if I`m symptomatic for two days and I get asymptomatic for three? Like how do I -- what does that -- how does that cash out in real life?

DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, CHIEF MEDICAL ADVISER TO THE PRESIDENT: Well, let`s start with the completely asymptomatic first, Chris, because that -- we want to make sure that fundamental issue gets understood. The underlying purpose of taking what would normally be if I`m infected and without symptoms, normally, I would have to be isolated for 10 days.

Right now, because of the concern that there are so many people now, unlikely in the next few weeks, who will be infected by this wave of infections that we`re getting with Omicron, many of whom will be without symptoms are only mildly symptomatic, that that might have a negative impact on our ability to maintain the structure of society, of all the essential workers that you would need if you keep them all out for a period of 10 days.

So, the consideration and the decision on the part of the CDC was let`s look and see if we could cut that in half to five days. So, what happens is that you`re isolated for five days, and then if you`re still asymptomatic, at the end of that five days, you can go out and do your job and reenter society, hopefully, getting functions of society normal, but you have to wear a mask. That`s the fundamental matrix of the issue.

HAYES: OK, but this --

FAUCI: The question is what happened if I`m -- go ahead, please, ask the question.

HAYES: Well, no. I just -- this is -- this is -- that was a very honest and clarifying answer because you are talking about a policy judgment in a context of trade-offs between different consequences, OK. So, stopping the spread of a highly communicable infectious disease is one thing that we want to do, allowing, as you said, society to function. Obviously, like you don`t want everyone at the local water treatment facility to be out in quarantine for 10 days with none of the skilled technicians running it, for one example, OK.

[20:30:26]

FAUCI: Correct.

HAYES: But -- and I get that, and I think it`s a very forthright explanation. But I guess the question is like, is there any science backing up the idea that after five days of asymptomatic isolation, that you`re not still shedding virus and contagious?

FAUCI: Yes, yes. There is -- nothing is going to be 100 percent. And this is one of those situations when you`re dealing with a very difficult situation, Chris, that we often say, you don`t want the perfect to be the enemy of the good.

The fact is that we know that when you`re infected early on in infection, for the first several days, you have more of a likelihood to have a high level of virus, and to be capable of spreading it. As you get into the second half of that 10 day period, we know that the virus in general, not for every single 100 percent of the people, but for most of the time, for most of the people, that level of virus diminishes to the point where the CDC fields, and I don`t disagree with them at all, that wearing a mask is ample protection during that second half of a 10 day period.

When you balance that against the importance of trying to get people back functioning in society -- because the alternative is something that no one wants, and that`s to shut down completely. And we know that`s not going to be palatable to the American public. And that`s something you want to be avoiding.

So, how do you get people back to function in society, not with zero risk, but what a markedly diminished risk? That is the basis for that decision on the part of the CDC.

HAYES: So, OK -- so, two really important follow-up questions. One, I just want to ask you this devil`s advocate question which is, you know -- basically, there was a, you know, headline the other day that the Delta CEO was asking the CDC to reduce -- you know, reduced the isolation period from 10 days to five days, and shortly thereafter, that that was the announcement. And this notion that like, basically, you want to shove people back to work because that`s what bosses want, and science and risk be damned. And that sort of plays the fiddle for America is big employers who want people back at the desk. And now you`re going to go back to work because the CDC said so.

FAUCI: No, that`s not so at all. That was not the basis of the CDC`s decision. They made the decision. I was involved in some of the early discussions about the balance, that we try and have a good balance of preserving and protecting the public health, at the same time that we don`t have to have the draconian decision of shutting down the country.

And I think if we had decided to shut down the country, you would have a lot more devil advocates yelling at you and everybody else, Chris, and you know that.

HAYES: I think that`s probably, probably right. I mean -- I mean -- I guess I appreciate the honesty here about that sort of balancing these different competing interests. Let me ask one more question here on testing because I think that`s really the thing I`ve heard a lot from people is, OK, if you look at the NHS guidelines in the U.K., they say if you -- if you get a rapid antigen test, which they of course make available for free to everyone in the U.K. under their healthcare system, negative two days in a row, you can exit quarantine.

In the NBA, they have implemented a system. If six days, you know, asymptomatic, negative test, you exit. The test to stay policy that`s been announced for public schools which I think you`ve played a role in, similar lines. Here, there`s no testing requirement. And if someone says, I have COVID and I just popped in positive test on day six, you`re telling me I can go into the office?

FAUCI: Yes. So, the question is -- I guess I think the question behind that, Chris, is why did not the CDC say after five days, you have to get a test? And the answer that the CDC gives is that if you look at the predictive capability of a test to say whether or not you are infective is much, much more weighted towards the earlier first five days.

Once you get into the latter part of that, the predictive value of that in telling you whether or not you`re infective or not, there`s no real data to say that. There`s very little known about that. And that was the basis of the CDC decision.

HAYES: So, wait, let me just follow that a little bit just because I have followed this relatively closely as just a journalist and not a public health expert. What you`re saying is, the predictive value of an antigen test or rapid test, longer into a course of COVID, in terms of saying whether you are contagious, whether you`re effective, diminishes over time and we don`t have good data on how predictive and how accurate it is later in the course?

[20:35:31]

FAUCI: That is the CDC`s basis for saying that you don`t necessarily have to have a test at that point.

HAYES: OK.

FAUCI: That the value of the prediction at that latter five days diminishes such that that`s not really a highly predictive parameter. And in fact, if you look at what the FDA validated the test for, was never as a prediction of whether or not after X number of days you`re going to be effective and not.

If you go back and look at what the actual approval of the tests were, that wasn`t one of the indications for approval.

HAYES: All right, we -- I would love to have you back soon to keep talking through this. I really appreciate your patience with us tonight. Dr. Anthony Fauci. Thank you very much.

FAUCI: Good to be with you. Thank you, Chris.

HAYES: All right, we`ll see you soon. We have received word tonight of the death of a true titan of the United States Senate in the Democratic Party, the former Majority Leader Harry Reid. His former top adviser will join me next to discuss his legacy and it`s a big one. Don`t go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:40:00]

HAYES: We have some sad breaking news tonight. The former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada has died at the age of 82. Reid was a truly fascinating person. As a boxer, he was the head of the Nevada Gaming Commission. He served in the House all before going to the Senate where he served for 30 years. He led the Senate Democratic Caucus from 2005 to 2017, helping President Barack Obama pass through major legislation like the Affordable Care Act.

Senator Chuck Schumer, who succeeded Reid, as the leader of the Senate Democrats released a statement tonight saying, "Harry Reid was one of the most amazing individuals I`ve ever met. He was tough-as-nails, strong, but caring and compassionate, and always went out of his way quietly to help people who needed help."

Faiz Shakir was a senior advisor to Senator Harry Reid, and he joins me now. Faiz, thanks for joining us on short notice. And I first met you over a decade ago, I think, when you were working for Senator Reid. And I know his mentorship and working for him was really a formative experience. Maybe you just say a little bit about what the man was like to work for.

FAIZ SHAKIR, FORMER SENIOR ADVISOR TO SENATOR HARRY REID: Not just for me, but there -- you can have countless numbers of former Reid staff on here tonight who would all tell you the same thing. There was a unique ethic around Harry Reid. I learned that when I first joined them, a culture of Team Reid. I remember thinking when I joined them, like, is kind of a cult? What is this Team Reid philosophy?

And you learn almost immediately upon working for this individual, he inspires a loyalty? Where`s that loyalty come from? It`s this place of a selflessness that`s rare of a public official. He learns and cares and thinks about the people around him and got to know their families, knew what drive them.

I`ve been thinking about some of these individuals in public life, and what are their superhuman traits and qualities. For Harry Reid, it wasn`t like his ability to do a speech as you all know. It was a great eloquence on the floor. It was around knowing people, knowing what makes them tick, and inspiring a sense of getting the most out of them, putting them in positions to succeed.

And there are so many staff who could tell you, regale you with stories of just -- like, unusual desire on his part to reach out and care for another. And, you know, it`s rare in public officials these days where, you know, obviously, you`re driven by social media and all kinds of other stuff, to find humans like him who truly believed in the ethic of public service, to think about others before himself.

HAYES: There was a -- there`s a -- he had a fascinating career. And there were a few different evolutions he underwent that I think are key to understanding our political moment. And I think partly because I look at you and Adam Jentleson and other Reid staffers who`ve gone on to staff, you know, other people and Bernie Sanders among them. You know, Reid was -- he was a -- he was sort of an immigration hawk when he started. He was opposed to abortion. He was a devout Mormon.

He was, you know, I think from a kind of centrist mold. He was also kind of institutionalist. And he sorts of -- he evolves over the course of his career on both his kind of substantive ideological vision and also his view towards the nature of the Republican Party and the nature of the Senate as an institution in really surprising ways. A little like John Paul Stevens, in some ways in that way that, you know, where he started and where he ended up in public life is a fascinating trajectory with integrity throughout. I wonder if you could talk a little bit about that.

SHAKIR: In many ways, he -- you know, in some of those issues that you raise, he evolved with the Democratic Party and the majority of the people within the Democratic Party. He was very mindful and not kind of stubborn about where he might have started from but say, hey, you know, this is where in some sense -- in some sense, allow yourself to evolve with the circumstances.

And nothing probably exemplifies that more, you know, Chris, and you and I remember it, when he changed the Senate rules, right? He fought to say, hey, listen, the Senate rules don`t work anymore. I`m a -- I`m a Senate traditionalist, I believe in this institution, however, you have President Obama`s nominees being stalemated one after another, I`m going to change the rules. I`m going to go ahead and do it.

And I think that instance exemplified one element of Harry Reid I`ll carry forth through, you know, forever, which is this desire to just embrace the fight when the fight needed to be had. And there`s too often kind of, you know, this desire for bipartisanship, a committee. Of course, we want all those things. We wanted, you know, a decent relationship with each other in the -- in politics.

But the purpose of politics that Harry Reid understood very well is to get stuff done. And so, I think part of it is this hardscrabble life. As you remember, he went through like, you know, grew up in poverty, was a boxing commissioner, was almost -- was died -- almost was killed remember in a car bomb, right, planted by the mob. And it just --

HAYES: The mob trying to assassinate him -- literally tried to assassinate him because he`s going after them as the gaming commissioner and they put a car bomb underneath a car that was discovered before he got in it, right?

SHAKIR: Yes. And he lost an eye late in life, you remember, from a freak accident that cost him an eyesight, and when he was diagnosed with cancer, late in life, pancreatic cancer. And in the grid of the man was the we just charge through and fight. Nothing -- no, no obstacles, no barriers are going to stop us. We`re going to continue to care and fight for the things that we know need to get done.

There`s the kind of an ethic of that old school politician in him that was, you know, come from hard things, we know hard things, and we do hard things here. And I think that`s one of the lessons I -- you know, I hope people take away is that he was a person, as you mentioned, evolved over time on some core views, but never forgot where he came from, had principle convictions to the end about the things that he believed politicians should be fighting for, and that not himself but for others, and was willing to change rules, was willing to evolve with the circumstances to get things done. And that is his legacy.

HAYES: One more question about politics and political organizing. You know, we live in an era in which there`s a lot of fake organizing and fake organizations that don`t actually have power to wield, they don`t have structures. You know, Reid helped build this organization in the state of Nevada, and it was an organization of the Democratic Party and of the hotel workers union, of real rank and file hotel workers, you know, fused together. And you know, it functioned like a machine in some ways, right? I mean, the way that machines do, not corruptly but as a machine. But there`s almost nothing else like it in America what -- and he was the one who really helped put that together.

SHAKIR: He often told fellow senators to care about your state Democratic Parties. He built a state Democratic Party there to deliver democratic wins. I mean, if you look at the trajectory of Nevada, now you have a trifecta in the state, a Democratic governor. You`ve got the -- kind of recognition Nevada as a blue state, which was certainly as you remember when we`re growing up, you know, 2020 years ago, that was not how we would think of Nevada.

It was Harry Reid who ushered all of that in. And how did he do it? Well, it was -- it was the fusion -- to use your word -- fusion of the Team Reid loyalty, inspiring and understanding a generation of people who are good at politics, right, who kind of he knew are talented, putting them in positions to succeed, and then play some brass knuckle politics, old school brass knuckle politics. Like, I`ll say, get things done. Like, worry about the end state.

I remember Senator Reid sitting around one time saying, well, you know, why do I care for like, you know, 60, 70, 80 percent of people like me. I have to win 50 plus one. It was -- it was his brass style politics there. All I got to do is win, get across the finish line. That`s how we built the party.

He`s like, we`re not here to try to like have this grandiose visions of everybody in the world loving me, although I think that they should. But he was like, listen, we got to -- we got to win and we got to deliver for people. And that`s how he built a machine in that state. And to this day, I think will outlast him. There`s so many things that will outlast him as the marker of a great and wonderful human being that he was.

HAYES: I got to say, just knowing a lot of people that were on as Faiz called it, Team Reid, through the years that they all talk about him in the same way. So Faiz Shakir, thanks so much for making time.

SHAKIR: Thank you for giving him lift at this -- there`s parts of our hearts, holes in our hearts that will never be filled. But hopefully, all people who aspire for public office will aspire to be like the great Harry Reid.

HAYES: All right. We`ve got a panel here. Anand Giridharadas is the publisher of The.Ink on Substack, as well as the author of Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World. Linda Chavez served as the highest-ranking woman in the Reagan administration. Elie Mystal is justice correspondent for The Nation Magazine. And they all join me now.

Elie, let me start with you on Reid and his legacy, because you heard Faiz say that one of the most consequential decision was to get rid of the filibuster for appointees, and that included judicial appointees, and that did unblock a ton of nominees for President Obama. Of course, that was then wielded by Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump to stuff the judiciary, and we should also note has led to a record amount of judicial appointments in Biden`s first year. So, it has sort of done it for both sides. I wonder what you think the legacy of that decision is?

ELIE MYSTAL, JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT, THE NATION MAGAZINE: Well, I think it shows that that what Faiz was just talking about is true that sometimes you have to be concerned about the end state. I think Reid gets unfairly maligned for changing the filibuster rules for lower court appointees, and then having Mitch McConnell kind of turn it around on him and change it for Supreme Court appointees.

[20:50:03]

And remember, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett are all there in a -- in a filibuster-free world. If there was a filibuster there, none of these people got 60 votes. And so, people kind of blame Reid retroactively for his change that allowed Mitch McConnell change -- to change it, which I think is dumb, because the universe in which Mitch McConnell does not bend the hell on earth to get Neil Gorsuch and Kavanaugh and Barrett on the court simply doesn`t exist.

HAYES: Yes.

MYSTAL: So, McConnell was going to change it anyway, re-prestruck by changing the filibuster rules for lower courts appointments. And as you say, that is why Biden and as a first-year President has appointed more lower court justices in his first year than any other president in American history besides, you know, George Washington. So, there you go.

HAYES: Linda, Reid, obviously, had a very, very long career in Washington, was really like a creature of the U.S. Senate in the way that fewer and fewer politicians are. I don`t know if it`s a good thing or a bad thing, frankly, although one thing I`ve learned about covering the Senate as knowing how the Senate works confers a lot of power and actually not a lot of senators do.

Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, for instance, are two people that really understand how the Senate works at a deep and granular level. And that really does give you an edge.

LINDA CHAVEZ, FORMER REAGAN ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Absolutely. In fact, my favorite Harry Reid quote was something to the effect of -- someone asked him how it is he had such great success. And he said, well, I didn`t have success because of my good looks, or because I was a genius. I had success because I worked harder than anybody else.

And I think that`s absolutely true. And you`re absolutely right about the - - his command of the rules. It`s something that Mitch McConnell also, who you know, was his adversary, also had very good command of the rules. But I guess I would disagree on the question of whether changing the vote on filibusters for court appointments was a good thing.

I think you have to be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it. And I do think that it opened the door for Mitch McConnell to be able to do it for Donald Trump and his three Supreme Court Justice appointments, which all of whom I supported, but I have an idea that not everyone on the panel did.

HAYES: Well, to that -- to that point, to sort of zoom out for a second, Anand. I mean, one of the things I think about the evolution -- and Reid was key of this of less sort of moving towards majority vote in the Senate, this idea that like, well, what`s good for the goose is good for the gander is, that is true. But it`s also like, that`s the way democracies work.

I mean, we`ve got -- you know, there`s 50 states in the union that function without -- I mean, I think there`s like three or four that have supermajority requirements for some stuff, and most of them just function with bicameral systems, a majority threshold, and somehow they manage. Like, this idea that this is sacrosanct that it absolutely has to exist in the U.S. Senate is largely kind of a creation of the last 60 or 70 years. And I think that if you have a commitment of small d democracy, Anand, as I know you do, there`s really compelling reasons to look -- to get rid of that.

ANAND GIRIDHARADAS, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes, and I think you know, Faiz talks --

CHAVEZ: Yes, I think, you know, democracy --

HAYES: Let me go --

CHAVEZ: I`m sorry, I thought --

HAYES: Let me go to Anand first, Linda, and then I`ll get you.

CHAVEZ: Sure.

GIRIDHARADAS: You know, I think Faiz spoke movingly of Senator Reid`s evolution. And part of -- you know, and love of the institution. And I think part of loving an institution is having an honest relationship with it the same way loving a person means having an honest relationship with that person.

And if you -- at some point, as any conscientious person would realize over the last 20, 30, 40 years in America, the Senate I think started to go from being somewhat quaint to being a principal obstruction in the -- in the throat of American democracy.

I think today, if you had to rank the top, you know, four or five institutional features of this society that might -- through a series of consequences spell the end of the Republic, the Senate would be very high on this list. And so, it`s refreshing that someone who loved that institution, who was a part of it, as an institutionalist as you said, was also able to recognize that potential asphyxiation by the institution he loved.

And it`s kind of sad thinking about his colleagues, present senators who are who are very much still living who are in that body and who don`t realize that they are potentially part of -- if they don`t support things like changing the filibuster, changing the Senate rules on various things, part of suffocating this society at large.

HAYES: Yes, it`s funny that Reid`s evolution on that was one of the most remarkable features of him. Linda, you wanted to say something?

CHAVEZ: I just wanted to say that, you know, democracy is about a majority rule, but it is also about protecting minorities in politics not just minorities racial and ethnic but political minorities. And so, I -- you know, I worry that those who want to change the filibuster rules and get rid of the filibuster altogether, particularly those who happen to be Democrats, are going to be very disappointed the next time a Republican is a President and Republicans control Congress. That will leave the Democrats very much without any tools to stop the things they don`t want from happening.

[20:55:30]

HAYES: Well, I just have to respond on that quickly --

GIRIDHARADAS: I would just say, I believe in the idea of --

HAYES: Go ahead, Anand.

GIRIDHARADAS: Sorry, I just have say, an idea --

HAYES: Anand and then Elie.

GIRIDHARADAS: -- of Senate -- of the Senate protecting minorities, but I would love to actually see it happen.

HAYES: Elie, you go.

MYSTAL: The filibuster is here to protect segregation. Like, that`s why it`s here. It`s here literally to protect white majoritarian rule over the emerging majority of the country. So, if we want to move past white majoritarian rule, what we need to do is get rid of the filibuster, and let the people decide on their laws and on their government.

HAYES: Let me -- I`m just going to say one more thing, and then I want to go to -- I want to go to this polling on Chief Justice John Roberts because I`m curious to get your take on it. But one thing I`ll say, Linda, your point, and I`ve seen Kyrsten Sinema and Manchin, defenders of it.

It`s been interesting to me that to me, in some ways, the last two trifectas we had, Donald Trump, Republican, Republican, right? Trump, Republican House, Republican Senate, and then Joe Biden, in some ways have been demonstrations of the fact that it`s hard enough to get both Houses with the majority to get your major legislative achievement through.

Like, you didn`t need -- they use reconciliation, which is this weird kind of Rube Goldberg machine around the filibuster anyway. And even with a 50 vote majority, they couldn`t get the ACA passed. We`re one year in and even with a 50 vote majority, they can`t get Build Back Better.

So, it`s not like, you know, you come into office, you got a trifecta, people are just passing things by fiat. It`s hard enough in America to get stuff passed, particularly big stuff that I think that`s an interesting data point in the in the evolution of this conversation.

I want to talk about another sort of recipient of the power of the revocation of the filibuster, which is John Roberts who`s the Chief Justice of the U.S. court with a majority, as Elie pointed out, granted to him by Mitch McConnell getting rid of the filibuster.

And there was recent Gallup polling that showed John Roberts as one of like, basically the most trusted federal official, federal leader. He has a 60 percent approval rating, Joe Biden is 53 percent, Dr. Anthony Fauci is at 52. Roberts is 60 percent, and a huge bunch of liberals with favorable opinions. And I thought nothing is more Elie Mystal bait than this poll.

MYSTAL: I just -- I can`t understand where people have been living. John Roberts is the chief architect of the assault on democracy. He was the fifth vote on Citizens United, which unleashed money into our politics. He was the fifth vote and the author of Shelby County v Holder which eviscerated the Voting Rights Act. And he was the fifth vote and lead author in Rucho, which is the -- which is the decision that made gerrymandering non-justiciable at the -- at the Supreme Court.

So, that`s money, that`s gerrymandering, and that`s -- and that`s voter suppression all penned or all thought of by John Roberts, and this is your king, this is your man? This is the man that you trust? Like, I honestly do not understand. And it goes to show how little transparency there is in the Supreme Court, how little people understand how it works and what it does, and how quite frankly effective John Roberts has been in his own PR campaign. Because he always -- you know, he takes these votes, he`s always -- he`s always losing on things that he can`t win anyway, right? So, he`s always like showing liberals some love when there`s already five conservative votes, you know, against them in any event, right?

So, he`s got a really good PR campaign of like seeming to be moderate. But as we`ve discussed before, Chris, John Roberts, his entire ideal is to bend the law towards the Republican agenda as far as he can take it without breaking it. That he cares about breaking it is different, but that`s his goal.

HAYES: Quickly, Anand, as someone called him the most effective reactionary politician of his generation, and to Elie`s point, I think in many ways, that`s true precisely because he has gotten to do what he`s wanted to do and preserve this approval rating.

GIRIDHARADAS: I agree with everything Elie said, and not just because we`re part of this three-member salt and pepper panel, but because this is an extraordinary case of image trumping reality and for all the reasons Elie laid out so eloquently.

I will just say, there`s a larger point to mind here about right-wingers, which is John Roberts is the most popular right-winger in this country because he has figured out a particular art which is how to kick a country in the groin while smiling in its face. And a lot of people on the right, right now, don`t have that.

There`s this kind of rudeness and the kind of overt aggression. And I think there`s something dangerous and scary in thinking about what does a -- what does a presidential of a John Roberts look like? The smile, the fake institutionalism while eviscerating everything that is good in this country.

HAYES: Well, one of the weirdest developments of my life is that the model in the Republican politics right now is to be a jerk ostentatiously which is a very strange way to approach politics, but has sort of become the way people think about it.

Anand Giridharadas, Linda Chavez, Elie Mystal, thank you all. That was great. I appreciate it.

All right, that is ALL IN on this Tuesday night. Condolences, of course, to Harry Reid`s family. We`ll be thinking about them tonight. "THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW" starts right now with Ayman Mohyeldin in for Rachel. Good evening, Ayman.