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

Transcript: All In with Chris Hayes, 7/28/21

Guests: Eric Swalwell, Pramila Jayapal, Pete Buttigieg, Max Fisher, Sheera Frenkel


Right-wing media hosts mocked and ridiculed the four police officers after testifying yesterday at the January 6 Select Committee hearing. Democrats on the Capitol have been working alongside a sizable faction of Republicans who seem intent on risking their safety and making excuses for the mob to threaten their lives. We have the budget resolution, reconciliation framework coming up and a lot more work to do on things like the clean energy standard and other pieces of tax policy. The new data that shows people who get their news from Facebook are less likely to be vaccinated.


TIFFANY CROSS, MSNBC HOST: That was an amazing interview and great insight you got -- you provided for us. All right, that`s tonight`s REIDOUT. "ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES" starts right now.


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

MICHAEL FANONE, D.C. METROPOLITAN POLICE OFFICER: I remember thinking there was a very good chance I would be torn apart or shot to death with my own weapon.

AQUILINO GONELL, U.S. CAPITOL POLICE OFFICER: We were all fighting for our lives.

HARRY DUNN, U.S. CAPITOL POLICE OFFICER: It was a war that we fought.

DANIEL HODGES, D.C. METROPOLITAN POLICE: The terrorists alternated between attempting to break our defenses and shouting at or attempting to convert us.

HAYES: The officers who defended the Capitol mocked for their testimony.

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST, FOX NEWS CHANNEL: God save us from these third-rate theatrics.

HAYES: Tonight, why even police officers are now fair game for the right wing media. Then --

REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): Why did you vote no on this bill which was on the floor of the house?

HAYES: How Democrats are done with Republican nonsense. And as masks returned to the house.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Which is it, vaccines or masks? Do the vaccines work or they don`t work?

HAYES: Republicans lose it over the new restrictions and the Minority Leader attacks the science.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Leader McCarthy says it`s against the science.

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): He`s such a moron.

HAYES: When ALL IN starts right now.


HAYES (on camera): Good evening from New York. I`m Chris Hayes. First off the bat, there`s some breaking news. There appears to be a deal, a big bipartisan infrastructure deal, believe it or no. A few hours ago, a group of 21 senators announced it. I got to tell you, it came a bit as a surprise. Earlier this week, it seemed like said deal that we heard about a month ago was likely dead. It appears that`s no longer the case.

The huge $1.2 trillion deal appears to be happening. In fact, we`re going to have Secretary transportation Pete Buttigieg on to talk about it. He has been a big advocate for that piece of legislation.

Now, the ex-president is furious about the deal. He`s screaming into the darkness about how Republicans are getting played, though crucially, never offers a single substantive critique of the contents. But of course, that`s the way he views everything as zero-sum. Everything is someone winning and someone losing, someone is getting screwed and someone is doing the screwing.

It`s a cold, very sad, cynical way to view the world. But it`s also come to dominate the entire conservative movement. Because these days, a big part of the appeal of the conservative movement is the transgressive thrill of being a jerk, of being cruel, of mocking people and deriving them when they`re in pain, or suffering, or having a problem.

Now, the thing is everyone in life encounters people who are jerks. It`s part of life. It might be a co-worker, it might be a friend of a friend. Some people have family members that are jerks. It happens. We all deal with it. That is one thing. Elevating that, being a jerk, being cruel to a defining feature of one`s political movement is another thing altogether.

Now, this, of course, was Donald Trump`s superpower, right? Because it is, what the base loved about him and also what he loved. I mean being mean, even when he was going after his own conservative supporters.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A year ago, you told me on my radio show, the audio and the transcript are out there on YouTube, that you would release your tax returns.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you going back on your commitment.

TRUMP: No, I`m not -- first of all, very few people listen to your radio show. That`s the good news. Let me just tell you. Let me just -- which happens to be true. Check out the ratings.


HAYES: He did stuff like this all the time, and he learned particularly among conservatives like Hugh Hewitt there is that they would just say thank you, sir, may I have another and never really stick up for themselves and he`s just kept doing it over and over. The nasty insults, the vile behavior, the mocking of reporters physically disabled on and on and on, right? We all know the catalog.

As Atlantic staff writer Adam Server wrote in an essay back in 2018, that`s now the title of his best-selling book, the cruelty is the point, Trump`s only true skill is the con. His only fundamental belief is the United States is the birthright of straight white Christian men, and his only real authentic pleasure is in cruelty.

It is that cruelty and delight it brings them that binds his most ardent supporters to him in shared scorn for those the hate and fear, immigrants, black voters, feminists, and treasonous white men who empathize with any of those who would steal their birthright. The President`s ability to execute that cruelty through word and deed makes them euphoric. It`s pretty on the money. I mean, yesterday, we were served up two perfect examples on full display.

The first was this incredibly emotional testimony at the select committee investigating the Capitol attack of these four officers who faced brutal violence on January 6, and in the case of Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn, a slew of racist epithets. Those officers spoke with incredible poise and courage and emotion about what they face that day.


FANONE: Being an officer, you know your life is at risk whenever you walk out the door, even if you don`t expect otherwise law-abiding citizens to take up arms against you. But nothing, truly nothing, has prepared me to address those elected members of our government who continue to deny the events of that day, and in doing so, betray their oath of office.


HODGES: The sea of people was punctuated throughout by flags, mostly variations of American flags and Trump flags. To my perpetual confusion, I saw the thin blue line flag, a symbol of support for law enforcement more than once being carried by the terrorists as they ignored our commands and continued to assault us.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): Can you tell us what you were thinking when you were losing oxygen and thought that might be the end?

GONELL: My rushing out there and the way I was thinking is like, we can`t let these people in no matter what even if it cost my life.

DUNN: Once the building was cleared, I went to the rotunda to recover with other officers and share our experiences from what happened that afternoon. I sat down on the bench in the rotunda with a friend of mine who was also a Black Capitol Police officer and told him about the racial slurs I endured. I became very emotional and begin yelling, how the blank could something like this happen? Is this America. I began sobbing. Officers came over to console me.


HAYES: After watching that, I sincerely hope that even if the point those officers were making did not directly align with their politics, some part of you, some decent human part of you would recognize this was genuine pain. I`ll speak for myself for a moment. I remember walking into the Republican National Convention in Cleveland in 2016. It was the first night of Donald Trump`s convention. And it was Ben Ghazi and national security were the focus.

And I was in there on the ground floor. And on the stage, there`s a woman named Pat Smith, the mother of one of the people who died in the 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. And she was up on stage recounting her suffering at the loss of her son. And I remember feeling awful for her. It was hard not to feel that when someone in your presence is an obvious pain.

And while the politics of it all seemed manipulative, at no time did I feel compelled to ridicule this woman who was obviously suffering a grievous loss. I mean, I had a TV show at the time. I suppose if I were a real sociopath, I could have but it never even occurred to me. But that`s not what the conservative movement in the MAGA era is all about. Mocking people for their loss, for their pain is a huge part of the point. It`s why they`re doing it. So, not surprisingly, this is what we saw last night.


TUCKER CARLSON, HOST, FOX NEWS CHANNEL: Watch Fanone site the psychological trauma hindered as an excuse for ditching our bill of rights.

FANONE: I`ve been left with the psychological trauma and the emotional anxiety of having survived such a horrific event.

CARLSON: What`s interesting is that Michael Fanone didn`t mention experience any trauma during the time he spent last year on the D.C. police force.

INGRAHAM: Now, the award for best use of an exaggeration in a supporting role, the winners Aquilino Gonell who thinks the pen is literally mightier than the sword.

GONELL: You have all these items and things that were thrown at us and attack -- and are used to attack us. Those are weapons, no matter if it is a pen.

INGRAHAM: The award for blatant use of partisan politics when facts fail, the angle award goes to Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn.

DUNN: I`m a law enforcement officer. And I do my best to keep politics out of my job. But in this circumstance, I responded, well, I voted for Joe Biden. Does my vote not count? Am I nobody?

INGRAHAM: We have more on him in a moment, but it`s not about politics at all.


Now, keep in mind, the people directing criticism here are some of the most privileged and cosseted and people on earth. I mean, Donald Trump is the perfect example of this, right? The thoroughly mediocre legacy case who basically inherited everything from his daddy, including, you know, millions of dollars in the myth of being self-made. Or Tucker Swanson McNear Carlson, a prep school frozen food air from the main streets of La Jolla.

I mean, they certainly never faced anything like what those officers faced on January 6. But it`s not just those officers yesterday that were mocked and ridiculed. There was of course in the same day the news about Simone Biles, the four-time gold medalist and perhaps the greatest gymnast ever.

As you probably know, Summer Olympics happening in Tokyo, Japan. I`ve been watching and enjoying quite a bit. Biles withdrew from the competition. She did this yesterday after coming down awkwardly during her signature event, the vault, where she kind of lost her place midair and was hurling herself in a way that could be physically catastrophic.


SIMONE BILES, OLYMPIC GYMNAST, TEAM USA: I feel good. I`m in shape. Emotionally, that kind of varies on the time in the moment. You know, coming here to the Olympics and being the head star of the Olympics is not an easy feat. So, we`re just trying to take it one day at a time and we`ll see.



HAYES: So, Biles withdrew from the team finals. In fact, it probably helped her team which won the silver medal. She announced she will not be competing at tomorrow`s individual all round competition because of this mental health issue.

Now, a lot of people, including myself are disappointed she will not be competing but also feeling empathy for her because, well, she`s an incredible figure. And obviously, she`s in distress or she wouldn`t be doing this. For others, it`s just another opportunity to find a way to mock and ridicule and to monetize someone`s pain in a moment of weakness broadcast all over the world.


CHARLIE KIRK, HOST, CHARLIE KIRK SHOW: We are raising a generation of weak people like Simone Biles. Again, if you want to be -- if you got all these mental health problems, don`t show up. She`s an incredible athlete. Of course, she`s an incredible athlete. I`m not saying -- I just said, she`s probably the greatest gymnast of all time. She`s also very selfish. She`s immature and she is ashamed to the country. She`s totally a sociopath.


HAYES: OK, he`s talking about weak people, weak people, right? There is little about that rant surprising. I mean, conservatives understand which side their bread is buttered, so they love nothing more than a rail against prominent Black people and try to tear them down because their audience eats that up. I wonder why.

I was not even that surprised, honestly, by the mocking of police officers that we saw. Although it`s a little surprising in some ways when you think about it. But when you build a political movement, whose emotional core is transgression and cruelty, ultimately, no one is safe from that kind of treatment. You know, ask Hugh Hewitt. So, what kind of governance will that lead to the next time that these folks get power?

Congressman Eric Swalwell is a democrat from California who says that some Republicans are trying to erase the heroism of the police officers who defend the Capitol on January 6, and he joins me now. I wonder what your responses or your reaction to sort of watching the, you know, the scoring being heaped on these four individuals who came before the committee yesterday.

REP. ERIC SWALWELL (D-CA): It`s hard to watch, Chris. I`m someone who is alive and was a part of a process that counted votes to ensure the next president`s victory could be certified because of those officers. I`m also someone whose two brothers work every day to defend and protect the community where I grew up.

And so, I know the pain that this causes officers, that re-traumatizes them. And so, we`re not asking Tucker Carlson to put on the body armor and go in hand-to-hand combat with the insurrectionists as Mike Fonone and Daniel Hodges and Harry Dunn and Sargent Gonell did that day. We`re not asking him to show that kind of courage. We`re just asking him to have the decency to acknowledge what they did and recognize the ground truth of what really happened that day to our country, and that it nearly died, and sadly, it`s on life support today.

HAYES: The decency question, I guess -- I think most of your colleagues across the aisle are not so indecent that they would keep that score. And I would bet that, you know, even the people keeping score now wouldn`t like do it to Harry Dunn`s face, much easier to say if removed. But I am -- but what there is, instead of that, there`s also just as kind of ears plugged see no evil, hear no evil, let`s avoid the whole thing, which I feel like is kind of cast a pall over the entire Capitol now for months.

SWALWELL: I`ve been with Harry Dunn a lot on the Hill. He`s a big, booming figure with a big smile on his face always. And I saw him before this. I`ve seen him since. And now you do see members, Chris, walked by him and they just kind of put their head down. I think it`s a little bit of guilt, that he`s being treated the way that he is. And that they may not be saying it themselves, but they`re enabling Kevin McCarthy and Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Andrew Clyde and others who are making these attacks.

HAYES: I want to play for you something. I know that you have a friendship relationship with Michael Fanone. He`s been on this program before. And he talked about as did others about the sort of their view on this, which is they know what they saw that day and they know the people there. But they - - what they want to find out is who and how they were sent. And here`s what he had to say. Take a listen.


FANONE: In the Academy, we learn about time, place, and circumstance in investigating potential crimes and those who may have committed that. That is what I am looking for is an investigation into those actions and activities which may have resulted in the events of January 6, and also whether or not there was collaboration between those members, their staff, and these terrorists.

DUNN: We can only, you know, deal with the crimes that happen on the streets, the misdemeanors and occasionally the violent felonies, but you guys are the only ones we`ve got to deal with crimes that occur above us. I need you guys to address if anyone in power had a role in this.



HAYES: That seems like the sticking point and the fear and the source of the opposition from your colleagues.

SWALWELL: That`s right. And when I listened to that played back from Hodges and Fanone, what I hear from them is, we put our bodies into the mix to protect the country that day and we saved it. As I said, it`s on life support. But you`re the ones who are charged with understanding how it happened, holding those to account who are responsible, and then making sure that this democracy rolls on. And that the heroism of those officers always is a part of the story of America and not erased as some in Congress are trying to do.

HAYES: Congressman Eric Swalwell, thank you so much for making time tonight.

SWALWELL: My pleasure.

HAYES: Something we`ve talked about often in the month since January 6 attack is how members of Congress are able to work alongside Republicans who tried to overturn the election that day or who deny the violence of the mob. Well, yesterday, Congressman Jamie Raskin gave us his unequivocal answer. You just never let him forget. That exchange and the argument against business as usual is just a head.


RASKIN: Do you think that what they experienced was an attack by tourists or terrorists or violent insurrectionist? You`ve got an opportunity to clarify for the whole country right now.

REP. ANDREW CLYDE (R-GA): If you will read the first part --

RASKIN: I`m not interested in that. I`m asking you.



HAYES: On January 6, when rioters breached the Capitol building, a group of them tried to break into the House chamber still full members of Congress. This picture shows the chaos that ensued as officers barricaded the doors to keep them out of out. You`ve probably seen it before. We`ve shown it in the program. And you might also recognize it on the far left is Republican Congressman Andrew Clyde of Georgia. And you can see the sheer panic on the man`s face. He`s bracing himself against the wall as a security officer gun-drawn protects his life.

In the months that followed, Congressman Clyde rather infamously changed his tune about that day. At a hearing about security lapses that may have allowed the attack to happen, Clyde compared the scene on January 6 to a "normal tourist visit." Of course, that`s a ludicrous characterization. Everyone who`s not under Donald Trump`s thumb knows that.

The suggestion that they were is also offensive to people who were there that day and live through the terror of it. That includes Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin. Last night, Raskin confronted Clyde at a Rules Committee meeting clearly feeling that business could not just go on as usual with those comments still hanging in the air.


RASKIN: Did you have an opportunity to see officers Hodges, and Fanone, and Dunn testify today or Sergeant Gonell?

CLYDE: Mr. Raskin, let`s stick to the amendment as to --

RASKIN: Well, I`m getting to the amendment. If you don`t like the question, just say you can take the Fifth or you start --

CLYDE: No, that`s not the point.

RASKIN: Well, I don`t need you correcting my question, sir. I`m asking, did you watch the testimony of the Capitol officers who defended our lives on January 6 or did you not? It`s a yes or no question.

CLYDE: It`s irrelevant. It`s absolutely irrelevant to this amendment right here.

RASKIN: OK. They were asked the question by several colleagues, including Ms. Cheney about statements that you made saying that the January 6 violent insurrection against Congress was akin to a normal tourist visit. And those of us who said they weren`t tourists, they were terrorists, do you stand by your statement that they were tourists?

CLYDE: I would like you to quote my exact statement, not your interpretation of my statement.

RASKIN: OK. Watching TV footage of those who entered the Capitol and walk through statuary halls showed people in an orderly fashion staying between the stanchions and ropes, taking videos and pictures. You know, if you didn`t know the TV footage was a video from January 6, you would actually think it was a normal tourist visit. Those are your words.

CLYDE: And I stand by that exact statement as I said it.

RASKIN: You voted no on giving Congressional Gold Medals to the officers who defended our lives on that day. 140 of them were wounded, injured, dozens of them in the hospital. People lost fingers. People had their eyes gouged. People experienced traumatic brain injuries. People experiencing traumatic -- Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome To this day, and you voted no on extending Congressional Gold Medals to them. Why did you do that?

CLYDE: Again, that has nothing to do with this amendment. But you know what, I will tell you.

RASKIN: I`ll bring it back to the amendment, Mr. Clyde.

CLYDE: That I co-sponsored amendment, excuse me, a bill to give a gold medal, three gold medals to the Capitol Police, all right, for all of what they`ve done. It was introduced by Representative Gohmert. So, I`m sorry if you didn`t understand that or if you didn`t maybe get that information. But I am not going to give my vote to Speaker Pelosi a gold medal.

RASKIN: OK, I`ll reclaim my time. Mr. Clyde, you were one of 21 members --

CLYDE: Because she is the one who is in charge of the Capitol Police and the Sargent at Arms.


HAYES: One of the things we`ve learned from yesterday`s January 6 Select Committee hearing is how productive, how effective it can be to not go along with business as usual, to not concede a role to those who have removed themselves from the project of democratic governance through their actions, which is exactly the decision the Speaker of the House made today when she called the House Republican leader a moron. That`s next.



HAYES: In a memo sent out late last night, Congress` top doctor announced that all 435 members of the House and their staff will be asked to wear a mask when inside health offices and on the House floor. The House dropped its mask mandate six weeks ago, but with the Delta Varian driving infections, the Capitol physician announced this new policy.

As you can imagine, this policy reversal has ruffled feathers amongst Republicans. House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy is saying "The threat of bringing masks back is not a decision based on science, but a decision conjured up by Liberal government officials who want to continue to live in a perpetual pandemic state.

I don`t think anyone wants to live in a perpetual pandemic state. That`s why we`re trying to get everyone vaccinated. Now, it should be noted the CDC did introduce new mask guidance just yesterday based on new data that CDC says it`s analyzed the viral load of those infected with a Delta variant. That`s what we talked about with Dr. Fauci. And the CDC now saying that if you`re indoors in an area of high transmission, wear a mask even if you`re vaccinated because of that data.

Now, there`s some people who are a little unsure about whether the data bears that out. McCarthy, like many Republicans have more or less oppose just about every measure to suppress COVID and so he spent the day tweeting about this and taking the floor without a mask to inveigh against the tyranny of the new rules.


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi today was asked about what McCarthy said. I want to play her response to you because it is very clear she`s just about had it with business as usual. Listen to what she calls him here at the end.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: -- mask mandate Speaker Pelosi, any response to the backlash?

REP. NANCY PELOSI, (D-CA): That`s the purview of the Capitol Physician (INAUDIBLE) mandate from him. I have nothing to say about that except we honor it. I have my mask.

He`s such a moron.


HAYES: Did you hear that? That was the Speaker of the House calling the Minority Leader a moron, which as was reiterated later she clearly meant.


PELOSI: I said earlier in my comments, science, science, science and science to say that wearing a mask is not based on science. I think is not wise and that was my comment.


HAYES: Here`s the thing, Democrats on the Capitol have been working alongside a sizable faction of Republicans who seem intent on risking their safety and making excuses for the mob to threaten their lives.

And Democrats on Capitol Hill seem pretty sick of it. Now openly acknowledging you cannot just, you know, do business with someone, especially when they are potentially a danger to everybody who works in that building.

Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal, Democratic Washington is the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and she joins me now.

I don`t want to over psychologize here, Congresswoman. But there`s an aspect of it covering Congress night in, night out for six months, where like, there`s just something deeply toxic and unresolved in the building you work in, which is that a violent mob stormed that Capitol, threaten the lives of the people inside, a significant number of colleagues then voted with them to overturn an election and are making excuses for them.

And yet, every day you guys go in and just like pretend everything`s OK. And it doesn`t seem like it`s going great.

REP. PRAMILA JAYAPAL (D-WA): It`s not, Chris. And you know, I`ll tell you, I was just on the floor tonight with a colleague, a Democratic colleague, and I think we`ve all kind of had it because there is this -- I mean, the country has to reckon with what happened on January 6th, and there`s this giant gap between our colleagues who are saying it didn`t happen, and that there are tourists, as you heard Jamie Raskin questioning him about, and we know that it happened. We were there, it was real. And we are trying to get real work done for the American people.

We`re not only trying to get to the truth about January 6th, and what happened and who was involved, so it can never happen again. But we`re also trying to legislate for these multiple crises that Americans are facing across the country.

Americans need childcare, they need health care. The eviction moratorium is going to expire on Saturday and there are going to be millions of people that are homeless.

And meanwhile, our Republican colleagues are passing motions to adjourn just for the heck of it and delaying everything that we`re doing and refusing to vote for the things that really will change Americans lives.

HAYES: Yes, there was a day-long temper tantrum on the mask guidance, which, again, today I can -- I mean, I guess I could be like, I understand, thinking, oh, well, this is unjustified or being annoyed by it. But just you know, I don`t know, suck it up (INAUDIBLE).

But also, you`ve got -- I mean, you know, you`ve all -- you`ve also got, I think 100 percent of Democrats are vaccinated. McCarthy says number of 85 percent today, which would put you about 65 percent of Republicans. It`s like, you know, that`s another thing where it would be good for everyone to get vaccinated there. But here we are again.

JAYAPAL: Well, instead of passing motions to adjourn, what if they just went and got a shot? What if teachers got vaccinated? It would take less time, and then they wouldn`t have to throw little temper tantrums on the floor.

But this is more serious than even them, right? I mean, their behavior and their lies about January 6th, about COVID, about masks, about vaccines are fueling a rise in cases across the country, which is fueling a rise in deaths across the country, which is fueling the need for us to wear masks.

We`ve been vaccinated, but we are supposed to say OK, you guys, you know, not only aren`t getting vaccinated, you`re not telling your constituents to get vaccinated, and you`re fighting with us about masks when lives are at stake. And January 6th lives were at stake.

And so, yes, the anger about the environment in which we`re operating here and we`re forced to operate, which at the end of the day, harms our democracy, harms our constitution, harms the American people is incredibly difficult. You can certainly sense the frustration.

HAYES: I`m going to hold you for another second. Two more quick questions for you. One is about McCarthy pulling Republicans off the select committee that you are on, which is select committee about economic inequality and economic disparity.


HAYES: And this was I think, in protest of Pelosi`s -- the speaker`s decision to block some of the members he named to the Select Committee about one-six. But my thought watching yesterday was like, well, it sort of went better without them. I mean, isn`t this kind of a plus for you guys on the committee?

JAYAPAL: That`s kind of my thought to to be totally frank, because, you know, we want people who are committed to the truth, we want people on the Select Committee on January 6th that are committed to the truth. And there are two Republicans on there, if Kevin McCarthy can`t put people on there that are committed to the truth, that`s the way it is.

And here on this Select Committee on inequality, we want people who are committed to the truth that there is extensive inequality, the worst inequality we`ve seen since the Great Depression in the United States.

And if they can`t even bring themselves to be on a select committee about that issue, then I think they`re showing their cards. They`re not going to do it for anything.

HAYES: Final question quickly, bipartisan infrastructure framework has been announced in the Senate side. The Congressional Progressive Caucus of which you`re a member in leadership, if I`m not mistaken, put out a statement --

JAYAPAL: The chair -- the chair.

HAYES: We`re not, we`re -- chair, right, yes. So, we`re not -- you guys put out a statement saying, look, we`re not -- we`re not yes votes on this until we`re guaranteed that other parts of the agenda are going to happen. How -- what`s the communication like right now? What the state of play?

JAYAPAL: Well, we said three months ago -- the Progressive Caucus said three months ago that we were not going to vote for any bipartisan deal unless there was a reconciliation deal that had our five priorities and it passed.

And so, we are in the same place. We`ve barely seen this bipartisan bill. It was decided on by four percent of the entire Congress.

And so, unless we see the reconciliation bill passed with our five priorities, we`re not going to be able to move the bipartisan bill forward.

HAYES: All right, Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal, that is useful for when I talk to Secretary Buttigieg. Thank you so much.

JAYAPAL: Thank you, Chris. Take care.

HAYES: All right, don`t go anywhere. More on that big news on the president`s bipartisan infrastructure deal with the aforementioned Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg. He joins me right after this.



HAYES: A huge step forward for the Biden agenda tonight as the bipartisan infrastructure bill move forward in the Senate.

In fact, 17 Republicans joined every Democrat to clear the filibuster, a 60-vote threshold to begin debate on the bill.

Afterwards, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer reaffirmed his commitment to passing both the bipartisan bill and as Representative Jayapal was talking about, the Democrats spending bill through reconciliation before the Senate goes on vacation.


SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): My goal remains to pass both the bipartisan infrastructure bill and a budget resolution during this work period, both.

It might take some long nights, it might eat into our weekends, but we are going to get the job done and we are on track.


HAYES: Joining me now, Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg.

Secretary, you know, it`s not the -- it`s not the wisest thing to reason your way through politics based on how people you don`t like think about things. But I will say that Donald Trump hates this deal, which makes me inclined towards favoring it and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce loves it, which makes me very skeptical of it. How should I think about it? And how do you think about it?

PETE BUTTIGIEG, U.S. SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION: Let`s say what`s remarkable is you have the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO saying the same thing.

You know, one really exciting thing about this bill is that you have all these strange bedfellows coming together, because it`s so clear that we need to do it.

Business and labor Democrats and Republicans, OK, maybe not the former president but so many people across the spectrum and across the country know that we need to make this happen.

We`ve been talking about infrastructure deals in Washington for years and years. And now, we have an opportunity to make it happen, not just a run of the mill infrastructure bill, but something that I think will be a generational investment, and historic opportunity on job creation, on climate and a lot of other things at stake in how we set up our transportation for the future.

HAYES: I want to talk about some of the climate aspects which are or not included. But first is this question, here`s some of the -- just so people have a sense of some of the top lines here. And again, we`re going to dig into this and these top lines are just these sort of numbers, but you`ve got roads and bridges, power infrastructure and clean energy, rail and Amtrak, modernizing transport, you`ve got electric vehicle chargers.

One thing I keep thinking about when we`re talking about roads and bridges, major projects and ports and things like that, like, are these going to be built with an eye towards what the climate of the next 25 years looks like?

Because it really seems like that is crucial, not just that we modernize and get away from fossil fuels, but the things that we`re building are climate resilient for a world that is getting much hotter and much wetter.

BUTTIGIEG: That`s exactly right. We`ve got to build resilient infrastructure. Yes, we`re working to make sure that climate change is stopped from getting any worse than it is, but it`s already upon us.

You know, in Portland during these shocking triple-digit temperatures they saw in the heatwave, they had to shut their transit system down because the cables were in danger of literally melting in New York at the Hudson River tunnel. It`s part of why they`re in such rough shape. It has to do with seawater penetration during Superstorm Sandy.

And we know that there`s more where this came from. That`s why you`re seeing 50 plus billion identified for a dealing with things like droughts and fires and floods. And we`re going to expect, certainly as a department, to the extent that we are shaping the dollars that Congress is hopefully about to pass.

We`re going to be expecting that communities and grant applicants demonstrate that they get that the way something should be designed for the future isn`t going to be the same as the past.

If you keep putting a road back that`s getting washed out year after year, maybe it needs to be built in a different way.


HAYES: So, I want to play for you something that you had to say about climate change in 2019. And then ask you about some of the climate elements here, take a listen to your own words.


BUTTIGIEG: We have lived this in my industrial Midwestern hometown. My generation has lived this as long as we have been alive, and it`s only accelerating. Science tells us we have 12 years before we reach the horizon of catastrophe when it comes to our climate.


HAYES: Now, there are some climate provisions in this legislation. But if you look at the White House`s initial proposal, right, a lot of things the White House really cares about clean energy standard being one of them very, very important. We`re very focused on on this show are not in this bill. What should we make of that? Are those -- are those priorities being abandoned?

BUTTIGIEG: None at all. No. And this is only one part of the administration`s policy. Obviously, we have the budget resolution, reconciliation framework coming up and a lot more work to do on things like the clean energy standard and other pieces of tax policy. The matter -- you know, you showed that clip, and it`s probably a year or two old. So, it`s more like 10 years now, if we`re lucky.

And again, some of the worst effects of climate change are already happening right now.

I guess what I would emphasize in this bill, even though it`s not maybe considered the climate bill, is that every transportation decision is also a climate decision, whether we call it that or not. Because transportation is the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases in the U.S. economy.

That`s why when we`re creating the biggest investment in public transit in the history of public transit federally, that`s also a climate decision.

When we`re talking about the kinds of investments that we`ll make on on ports and making it easier to move goods over water, which is more climate- friendly. That`s a climate decision.

When we`re investing in electric vehicle, charging infrastructure, school buses, helping transit agency agencies acquire zero-emission, electric buses, all of these things are part but only part of the answer when it comes to making sure that we meet the very aggressive goals that the president set out when it comes to our climate.

And, you know, this is one of the reasons why I think it`s important to understand that this bill is not like the 2009 stimulus package, which did a lot of really important and good work in transportation.

But that was about the dealing with the economic crisis of that moment. This is about preparing this bill for the future. Part of it`s about jobs, it will be created over almost overnight. But this is about a vision that will make sense in the 2030s, 40s and 50s as well.

HAYES: Secretary Pete Buttigieg, Secretary of Transportation, thank you so much for your time tonight.

BUTTIGIEG: Thanks for having me.

HAYES: Next, the disinformation death toll, the new data that shows people who get their news from Facebook are less likely to be vaccinated. That story next.



HAYES: Even though, new national COVID case numbers are as of now well short of the extremes we saw this winter in parts of the country with very low vaccination rates, things are approaching as bad as they have ever been.

Just this week, Louisiana, which is one of the lowest vaccination rates in the country saw its highest spike in the single-day COVID hospitalizations since the start of the pandemic.

Tonight, we`ve got some new insight into why so many people are still unprotected. For the last few months, the COVID states project asked people about their news consumption and their vaccination status. In total, 68 percent said they were vaccinated. 14 percent said they might get vaccinated and 18 percent said they wouldn`t get vaccinated. Those numbers shift considerably when people were asked where they got their coronavirus information.

Look at this chart of the people who said they got their news from the Biden administration, MSNBC, CNN, they were much more likely to be vaccinated, that`s the line in green.

And only single digits, line red say they would not get vaccinated. The people watch Fox News on the other hand, only 64 percent were vaccinated, 19 percent would not get the shot, so a big difference there.

It gets even worse when people got their new -- COVID news from Facebook. 20 percent not getting the vaccine while a full third of Newsmax viewers do not plan on getting vaccinated.

The thing is a lot of the people peddling vaccine disinformation on sources like Facebook are making a lot of money off of doing it.

I want to bring in new -- two New York Times reporters have been covering this growth industry, Max Fisher, who wrote about the booming shadow disinformation business with back alley firms and secretive backers, and Sheera Frenkel who just profiled one of the most prolific online disinformation merchants. She`s also author of the -- co-author of An Ugly Truth: Inside Facebook`s Battle for Domination which is out. It`s good to have you both on the program.

Sheera, let me start with you because I found your piece -- I found a lot of discussion about disinformation has felt a little abstract. The numbers feel a little hard to get your head around. I`ve been a slightly distrustful of them just because it`s never clear to me anyone really knows what anyone seeing. So, your piece was like, nicely concretizing.

So, just describe who this individual is and what his reach is.

SHEERA FRENKEL, THE NEW YORK TIMES TECHNOLOGY REPORTER You know, we wanted to profile one person, the most influential person in the anti-vaccination world for exactly that reason. It can feel really obscure, and it can feel unclear when we`re talking about people who are anti-vaccine activists.

But this is one individual who has been doing this for over a decade. He has found this gray area between social media sites where you can promote anti-vaccine ideology, and still have over a million followers on just one of his Facebook pages.

I`ll note, we found actually 17 Facebook pages that he was running. And through those, he`s able to really seed and spread this idea that COVID vaccines aren`t safe and that people should not be taking them.

HAYES: His name is Dr. mercola. He`s published over 600 articles on Facebook to cast doubt on COVID-19 vaccines since the pandemic began. Reaching it far larger audience to other vaccine skeptics.

How do we -- how do we get our arms around this scale of his reach?


FRENKEL: It`s hard, you know, we were looking at data for this story. And even we were struggling to figure out, you know, exactly how many people he was reaching. I think what we did ultimately was just look at a single post and find, you know, how about one post sort of reverberates through the internet.

So, when you look at a single post, when you see within hours of coming online, thousands of people are already sharing it or interacting it with some way. You can see just how wide his reach is.

And I think you know, what`s important about him specifically, is that he finds a way to evade Facebook`s rules and stay online. He manages to skirt just under the radar.

He doesn`t say COVID vaccines will kill you. He asked the question, well, do you think COVID vaccines will kill you? And then he gives an answer which very much suggests that yes, they will. But because he`s not stating it, Facebook doesn`t take him offline.

HAYES: Yes, this is a cowardly dodge has been honed by a whole bunch of people working in this space.

Max, your piece was sort of compliment in some ways was fascinating to me, because I did not know this industry existed. That there are firms basically, as you described, private firms straddling traditional marketing in the shadow world of geopolitical influence operations selling services once conducted principally by intelligence agencies, sowing discord, meddling elections, seeding false narratives and pushing viral conspiracies, mostly on social media. Who are these people and how do you hire them?

MAX FISHER, THE NEW YORK TIMES INTERNATIONAL REPORTER AND COLUMNIST: So, they are pretty easy to hire. That`s kind of their whole proposition, really. Anyone with 10, 20, $50,000 and access to a dark web account. Now you can have your own kind of, you know, Russians meddling in the 2016 election-style disinformation campaign.

The actual firms that are running it, it`s really the Wild West, because it`s a growth industry, it`s very easy for anybody to get into with just software off the shelf, buy in bulk user data, and then go into the platforms which are trying to stop it. But also, the design of them makes it pretty easy.

There was one that was a Washington D.C. lobbying firm that was doing a disinformation campaign on behalf of some right-wing governments and politicians in Latin America.

But a lot of them are basically e-mail spammers that have just found, OK, this is a slightly more lucrative business, it`s not that hard to get into. And a lot of them are, you know, marketing companies. So, it`s a really wide range, which I think speaks to how attractive this work is.

HAYES: So, you talked about the platform sort of trying to shut them down. And when I was reading your piece, the thing that thought I kept having, and I think the platforms would agree is there`s lots of content moderation calls that are gray areas, and tough. This doesn`t seem one.

Like, someone being, you know, paid to specifically use the platform for this and it seems like, yes, you should be able to shut that down. And yet, they`re having a hard time doing it.

FISHER: Well, to their credit, Facebook and Twitter, especially, maybe less on YouTube, are being really aggressive and hiring some of the best people in this space to root out, identify and expose these campaigns. And they`re doing so publicly, which I think is kind of admirable.

But at the same time, if you talk to experts and American officials who track this stuff. Let`s say, you know, for all the work that these platforms are doing on the back end, the design of their technology, and the design of their platforms, is really a big part of what makes this possible. And a lot of the firms that got into it, got into it specifically because disinformation is something that works really well in social media.

I mean, that`s what the Russians found in 2016. Just the nature of these platforms, their engagement maximizing, algorithms and design elements really privileged conspiracy and divisive content, which is part of why it`s so easy to get into it.

HAYES: Well, and that gets back to Sheera what you -- what you tracked, which is this is kind of a gray area. This is someone who is kind of managing to tiptoe up to but not crossing the line.

And again, you know, it`s a tricky thing, like the epidemiological data we have on stuff is, you know, constantly moving and you could just have a Facebook page that actually had just reports of people who actually had, you know, bad experience with the vaccine, they exist.

You would clearly be doing something nefarious, but it`s also like true. I just don`t know how equipped Facebook is to make these calls.

FRENKEL: Well, you know, that`s obviously something we cover in our book. And we show over and over again, that they`re not really proactive about making these calls, they tend to be really reactive. Once they have a problem, they`ve been trying to figure out a policy.

You know, listening to Max speak just now, I realized something else that bridged my work and his was that there`s a lot of money to be made in this. Whether you`re doing disinfo for hire, or you`re an anti-vaccine activist like the one I profiled on Sunday. You know, he`s worth over $100 million of his last filing.

We are talking about a way to become an incredibly wealthy person by giving people false information.

HAYES: Max Fisher and Sheera Frenkel, great reporting both of you. Thank you both for coming on the show. Really appreciate it.


FISHER: Thanks.

FRENKEL: Thank you.

HAYES: That is ALL IN for this evening. "THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW" starts right now with Ali Velshi in for Rachel. Good evening, Ali.