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

Transcript: All In with Chris Hayes, 12/1/21

Guests: Melissa Murray, Irin Carmon, Stephanie Murphy, Michael Shear, Betsy Stevenson


According to an upcoming book by none other than Trump`s own White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, then President Trump initially tested positive for COVID on September 26th of last year, that is nearly a week before he publicly disclosed his condition. President Joe Biden announced several new White House steps to ease supply chain issues.


JOY REID, MSNBC HOST: An estimated 38 million people are living with HIV worldwide. More than 36 million people have died from AIDS-related illnesses since the start of the epidemic. And that is tonight`s REIDOUT. "ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES" starts now.


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

SCOTT STEWART, SOLICITOR GENERAL, MISSISSIPPI: I hope I answered your question, but I think that`s one of the very strong reasons to just go all the way and overrule Roe and Cassey, Your Honor.

HAYES: The argument to take away a woman`s right to choose goes before the Supreme Court.

ELIZABETH PRELOGAR, SOLICITOR GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES: The court has never revoked a right that is so fundamental to so many Americans and so central to their ability to participate fully and equally in society.

HAYES: Tonight, the historic argument before a conservative packed court and the grave implications they hold.

SONIA SOTOMAYOR, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: If people actually believe that it`s all political, how will we survive? How will the court survive?

HAYES: Then, a surprise announcement from Jeffrey Clark as the January 6 committee makes a move toward a second contempt referral.

Plus, the damning implications of new reports that the former president had COVID way longer than we knew, including at the debate.

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Tonight is an example, everybody had a test, and you have had social distancing.

HAYES: And why the current president has a compelling case the economy is actually doing pretty well, when ALL IN starts right now.


HAYES (on camera): Good evening from New York, I`m Chris Hayes. Today, we find ourselves at a moment in American history where it appears we are about to move backwards, poised for regression on basic fundamental rights, poised to watch a space of freedom and autonomy shut down that had heretofore been protected.

Now, most of the story of American history is told as one of progress and there`s a case for that, the expanding of rights that protect people in larger and larger circles, enfranchisement in larger and larger circles. But of course, it`s not a steady march. These moments of reaction, the shutting off of those rights, the foreclosing of freedom and possibilities happened before.

It happened after the civil war when the redemption movement of white supremacists in the south wiped out enormous advances made during the reconstruction period. After the war, black people registered to vote, were elected to local office, and then they had those rights taken away through law and force and terrorist violence.

In 1882, the Chinese Exclusion Act became law. Chinese migrants had flocked to the United States in previous decades, many helping build the railroads, becoming part of American society. The government decided they didn`t want them anymore. They prohibited all Chinese laborers from entering the country.

In the early 20th century, we had prohibition itself the product of decades of organizing. Americans from the country`s inception had the right to drink alcohol for a very long time. That was stripped away from more than a decade in what is now mostly viewed as an absolutely cataclysmic mistake.

And now, something more fundamental. American women are at a dire risk of losing the right to an abortion. At the core of the Supreme Court decision that enshrined that right, Roe versus Wade, there`s the notion that there are some spheres of human activity in which no constitutionally grounded government can interfere.

The idea was built up through many years especially with a case called Pierce versus Society of Sisters in 1925 dealing with the question of whether religious people can opt out of public schools, choose to educate their children in parochial schools instead.

There was an Oregon law that forced them, compelled parents to send their kids to secular schools. And the court ruled in favor of the parents that didn`t want to do that and said the government couldn`t intervene in that situation. The court called that an unreasonable interference with the liberty of the parents. It violates the 14th amendment right to due process.

That decision, an apocal, an important one, expanded the idea that there exists a category of personal liberty, personal freedom, so fundamental and intimate that even if not explicitly protected by the constitution. It cannot be touched without violating our broader due process protections.

And so, in 1973, building off of that precedent and others rooted in the privacy of people of couples, their rights to contraception without interference from the government, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 constitution protected the incredibly intimate choice about what to do with one`s own body and pregnancy.

Then, nearly 50 years since then, the right-wing in this country has waged an implacable rearguard action to take that right away. Today they are on the threshold of success.


This morning, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case asking the court to uphold a Mississippi law that would ban almost all abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. If the court allows the Mississippi law to stand, they would effectively be overturning Roe and the fundamental right to have an abortion until the point of viability about 24 weeks of pregnancy.

If the right to bodily autonomy, the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy is taken away, what comes in its absence is effectively a de facto regime of forced pregnancy. That is what conservatives have been fighting for decades. In the past, they`ve been squirrely about saying it outright.

There`s been so much gaslighting and nonsense about claiming they were concerned about -- you know, that anyone concerned about protecting abortion rights was overreacting and hysterical and pipe down deer. They said they just wanted to regulate abortion clinic`s hallway widths and they wanted to keep women safe and have afforded choices and listen to a heartbeat before they decide what to do and wait 24 hours, yadda, yadda, yadda.

They pretended they believed roe was settled law which I mean, come on. Republican Senator Susan Collins claims that`s what Brett Kavanaugh told her. Oh, yes. Yes, Senator, settled law. Nothing else -- nothing here but us chickens.

What was striking about the arguments we heard today is that for the most part, contrary to all that gaslighting nonsense, the disingenuous misdirection that we`re so used to is that the anti-abortion side was no longer really hiding their true aim. Maybe that`s because the state of Mississippi is so brazen in what it`s asking, so confident that the three justices appointed by Donald Trump who promised he would appoint justices to overturn Roe and appears to have delivered on that promise -- maybe the only one he`s delivered on his life -- Mississippi is pretty confident that those justices will rule in their favor.

So, today, they were clear as day. They don`t just want the Mississippi law upheld with the 16 weeks, they want Roe overturned, done. They want to take this right away from Americans who have had it for generations. They want to kill Roe and they want to kill the 1992 decision that upheld at Planned Parenthood v Casey.

This is a portion of the opening argument from the Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart.


STEWART: Roe versus Wade and Planned Parenthood versus Casey haunt our country. They have no basis in the constitution. They have no home in our history or traditions. They`ve damaged the democratic process. They`ve poisoned the law. They`ve choked off compromise. Roe and Casey have failed, but the people if given the chance, will succeed. This court should overrule Roe and Casey and uphold the state`s law.


HAYES: While the justices were not all quite as open about their positions, Brett Kavanaugh did clearly lay out an argument for overruling previous settled decisions.


BRETT KAVANAUGH, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: Think about some of the most important cases, the most consequential cases in this court`s history. There`s a string of them where the case is overruled precedent. If the court in those cases had listened and they were presented in our -- with arguments in those cases, adhere to precedent in Brown v Board, adhere to Plessy on West Coast Hotel, adhere to Atkins and adhere to Lochner. And if the court had done that in those cases, the country would be a much different place.


HAYES: But Justice Sonia Sotomayor was explicit about what exactly is going on here and the consequences it could have for the institution of the Supreme Court and for the country.


SOTOMAYOR: The sponsors of this bill, the House Bill in Mississippi said we`re doing it because we have new justices. The newest ban that Mississippi has put in place, the six-week ban, the Senate sponsor said we`re doing it because we have new justices on the Supreme Court. Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts? I don`t see how it is possible.


HAYES: So, to just be crystal clear, conservatives have been and are trying to take away a right that Americans have had for nearly five decades, the right of bodily autonomy over a pregnant person`s decision about what to do with their body. And if the supreme court rules in Mississippi`s favor, that right to bodily autonomy would be wiped out for millions almost immediately, 22 states have laws already in the books that would outlaw abortion all in most cases. And most of these so-called trigger laws are designed to go into effect if Roe is gutted.

This is not abstraction. We are looking at a situation in which next summer, when the court`s decision is expected overnight, tens of millions of Americans could be under forced pregnancy regimes.

Irin Carmon is a Senior Correspondent from New York Magazine. Her latest piece is titled this is how Row ends. And Melissa Murray is a professor at New York University School of Law, former clerk to Justice Sonia Sotomayor and both join me now.

There`s so much to sort of sift through here, so I want to kind of segregate out a few different issues. Let`s start with the arguments themselves on the legal ground of Roe and whether roe should stand or fall. The main takeaway of people was like, oh yes, they`re ready to do this. I`m curious, Melissa, if that was your takeaway.


MELISSA MURRAY, PROFESSOR, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW: I think I was a little surprised by how willing and open they seem to be about their appetite to overrule Roe. I mean, as I have said before on this and other programs, this decision is likely to come out within months of the midterm elections and typically that might give the court pause on the prospect of American women going to the polls with Roe`s death on their lips I think would concern among others, the Chief Justice.

But it seemed like there was uniform glee appetite zeal to actually go whole hog for the nuclear option. Even the Chief Justice, the institutional stalwart on the court appeared to be interested in some kind of middle ground where Roe was not overturned fully but he then also made some pivots that suggested that he too was ready to take the final step.

HAYES: What was your takeaway, Irin.

IRIN CARMON, SENIOR CORRESPONDENT, NEW YORK MAGAZINE: So, as you mentioned, the conservative legal movement made a deal with a buffoonish libertine on the theory that it would get them closer to imposing traditional gender roles by forcing pregnancy and birth.

And they were right. The deal that they made was in 2016. That was the election that decided the course of American women and pregnant people`s lives. That was the decision that allowed them to get these three justices. When Chief Justice John Roberts talked a little bit about compromise, something that I noticed the media just ran with today despite the fact that it didn`t look like he had any company there, he sounded like he was a man from another time.

There was a point where the conservative legal movement for the first few decades realized that they risked backlash on the court and with the public if they went too far too fast. Today made it clear that they no longer believe that. They believe that they have the votes to brazenly go for the entire thing and witness -- even Chief Justice John Roberts actually pointed out, Mississippi changed its request when Amy Coney Barrett joined the court from sort of undoing Roe v Wade to openly over -- undoing Roe v Wade.

And so, I think it`s a bleak day for people who need to access this procedure who want dominion over their own bodies. Because the people who were called hysterical actually called it.

HAYES: Yes -- no, I mean, unquestionably and there was nothing more. I mean, at the time it was sort of comically disingenuous all the voices on the right saying like, well, you don`t know what Amy Coney Barrett thinks about abortion and how dare -- it`s offensive to say you do. And well, she`s just a judge. I mean, come on. I mean --

CARMON: And Brett Kavanaugh. I might add, Brett Kavanaugh supposed you know moderate Bush Republican. Brett Kavanaugh went for it today. Brett Kavanaugh is interested in overturning this precedent despite everything that he said to Susan Collins and others.

HAYES: Yes, but it was all lying for the lord. I mean, it`s all real politic, right? Like , you know, it doesn`t matter how many hundreds of thousands of bodies are piled up because of Donald Trump`s mismanagement of COVID and you know, the super spreader event itself for the pro-life justice that came this close maybe to killing off Chris Christie, managed to make it through the ICU and thank God. That like --

CARMON: I mean -- and I want to respond to what Melissa said about, you know the legitimate concern that you would think that the Republican- appointed justices would have with respect to the midterms, they talked a lot today about how Roe should be left to the democratic process. But the reality is that the people who are going to be most affected are the most disenfranchised from the political process.

They are the ones who are going to be -- the women of color, the immigrants may not have the status to vote or who may be blocked from voting, and that of course is a project of the sport as well. So, they clearly believe that they are insulated from Democratic accountability as a result of the broader picture that the court has helped draw.

HAYES: Yes. There`s also, Melissa, I mean, when they talk about the states, right, and when you look at these trigger laws, there`s a sort of emerging Republican doctrine of like state legislature legit -- supremacy. We saw -- they played around at the edges of it with the idea that the constitution says only state legislators can choose the president and the electors. The state legislator could just show up and say like, oh no, no, no, no. No, you don`t get to vote for Joe Biden, we give our electors to Donald Trump.

And in the same way, when you look at the gerrymandering in a state like Wisconsin which has essentially a supermajority on a split state, it makes sense from a conservative perspective to be like, yes, give this to the state legislators and call that democratic knowing full well how insulated it can be from democratic accountability.

MURRAY: I mean, this has been a long game of the conservative legal movement for some years, the idea that this game was going to be won on local turfs. This is not about federal politics, it was going to be state and local government, school boards, county commissions. And they`ve done it tremendously well.


But here`s the thing. Brett Kavanaugh today talked about some neutral settlement whereby we simply overrule Roe, send this back to the states for democratic deliberation. Scott Stewart emphasized this to send it back to the states. We have never allowed fundamental rights to be subject to the whims of the democratic process, to be subject to the whims of the majority.

If we did, we would not have had a decision in 1954 to desegregate the south because that is certainly not what the democratic majority in the south wanted at that time. We would not have 2015`s Obergefell versus Hodges.

And if you think that gay marriage is not on deck after a day like this, then you are frankly completely delusional because yes, they are coming for that too.

HAYES: Yes. That seemed to be -- that was the other part of this, the starry decisis, Melissa, on the podcast that you co-host with, full disclosure, my wife Kate Shaw and Leah Littman, you guys like to say jokingly starry decisis is for suckers as a kind of motto.

MURRAY: It`s not a joke anymore.

HAYES: No, it`s not. I mean -- I mean that -- yes, that`s how the conservatives on the court view it. And Sonia Sotomayor`s point, Irin, that look, Mississippi changed the filing when they could count to five, this is all just -- we`re just a super body of legislators who like Donald Trump picked us and we were like, we got you bro and we got on there now. We`re going to hook them up and hook up our people which is what this is.

CARMON: It was actually John Roberts who pointed that out. I mean -- and I think John Roberts, in the past, you know, you can see in the court`s most recent abortion decision where he reluctantly and kind of you know, sneakily separately wrote in support of maintaining the precedent, that John Roberts might have been somebody who in the short term at least would have said OK, we have to respect precedent or at least look like we`re respecting precedent, we`re going to tiptoe through that line.

But today, again, John Roberts sounded like a man talking from the past because Brett Kavanaugh and in my opinion, Amy Coney Barrett, are fully on board for the project that Alito and Thomas and Gorsuch are also on board for. So, it is very hard to imagine an instance in which the rest of red states look a lot like what is happening in Texas right now.

And I think it`s really important to point out that we`re already seeing this experiment in practice and we now understand why the Supreme Court allowed it to happen in Texas where six-week abortion ban is now forcing people either to remain pregnant without their will -- against their will, to leave the state only if they can afford to do so, or resort to methods of self-inducing pregnancy that might leave them vulnerable to prosecution.

It`s already happening in America because the Supreme Court allowed it to and it`s about to spread further into other states.

HAYES: The big question on this and we will return to this topic another day is what people could do, what the mobilization against this should have come down looks like because that fundamentally will be where history turns again if it does. Irin Carmon and Melissa Murray, thank you both.

Tonight, just minutes before we came on air, a surprise development something we`ve been monitoring all day. The January 6 Committee met to issue their second contempt citation. Jeffrey Clark though now wants a second chance to appear before the committee. We`re going to get into that with someone on the committee and what that`s all about next.




REP. BENNIE THOMPSON (D-MS): We have just learned that Mr. Clark has agreed to appear again to continue his deposition. However, we will proceed tonight with considering the contempt request as this is just the first step of the contempt process. We just want the facts and we need witnesses to cooperate with the legal obligation and provide us with the information about what led to the January 6th attack. Mr. Clark still has that opportunity and I hope he takes advantage of it.


HAYES: Surprising development tonight is the committee investigating January 6 met to dole out its second Contempt of Congress citation as committee chairman Bennie Thompson just took the extraordinary step of offering former Department of Justice official Jeffrey Clark another chance to sit for a deposition.

He`s already been in for one, but at his last appearance almost a month ago, Clark`s attorney told the committee he would not answer questions and would not produce any documents. So, the committee still voted to hold Clark in contempt. That vote passing unanimously. And a vote by the full House could come within days if Clark spurns the committee again.

Florida Congresswoman Stephanie Murphy is a member of the Select Committee investigating the January 6 attack who just voted for the contempt referral and she joins me now. Congresswoman, maybe you can explain the scenario here of what happened when he came the first time, the decision to vote for contempt, and what the latest developments are now.

REP. STEPHANIE MURPHY (D-FL): Sure. Thanks so much for having me, Chris. The first time that Mr. Clark appeared before the committee, he basically didn`t answer any questions, continued to try to use the executive privilege to not answer any questions, and then he ended the meeting and left.

And what he has done is tried to tell us that now he`s ready to come before the committee again but he`s going to plead the fifth. To be clear, pleading the fifth means that you are trying to protect yourself against criminal charges. And so, what the committee did is that we proceeded with the efforts to hold him in contempt.

What I think that anybody who has been called before this committee and the American people should understand from both the Bannon contempt as well as initiating the Clark contempt proceedings is that we will allow no one to be above the law and no one to stall the investigations of this committee.

And so, that`s why we`re moving forward to pre-position. We will allow him an opportunity this weekend to appear before us again and if we -- let`s see what he does before our committee this weekend, whether he`s had a change of heart about whether or not he`s going to cooperate and do his patriotic duty.

HAYES: Yes. So, my understanding is the invocation last time was a little gauzy but he was trying to invoke some executive -- nebulous executive privilege claim. Betsy Woodruff Swan noting yesterday on this program that the problem there is that the claim hasn`t been made even by the former President who doesn`t even really have the right to make it, but at least in the case of Bannon he`s invoked it. He has not invoked it on Jeffrey Clark`s behalf.

And so -- is that right? I mean, he came in and tried to claim a privilege that the person who theoretically might have a shot at it doesn`t even invoke on his behalf.

MURPHY: The current president who has the right to invoke executive privilege has not chosen to do so. That is President Biden. That is the person within whom has the authority to invoke executive privilege. Not only did President Trump not say anything about Clark, but Clark`s superiors at the Department of Justice have appeared before our committee and have provided testimony.

It`s a real shame that somebody who has taken an oath of office when he went to work for the Department of Justice to uphold the constitution is behaving in the way that he is today.

HAYES: I should say that the committee`s report on Clark says -- the committee believes that Mr. Clark had conversations with others in the federal government including members of Congress regarding efforts to delegitimize, disrupt, or overturn the election results in the weeks leading up to the January 6.

You mentioned something which I saw before which is, I guess, I don`t know if you stated this or indicated through lawyers to your committee and his intent to invoke the Fifth Amendment which of course uh is a constitutional protection against self-incrimination. You don`t have to answer questions from say, a police officer on the stand, right? This is a sacrosanct American right.

What I hear from you is it`s your committee`s position that the Fifth Amendment doesn`t apply in this case because it`s not a criminal proceeding.

MURPHY: Well, let`s see what he actually does when he appears before our committee again. But you know, invoking the Fifth is a weighty, a very weighty action. It means that you have concerns that you might incriminate yourself in a criminal act. And in the event that -- you know, let`s see what he does. But we will continue to proceed in every way we can to get the information that we need.

And this Department of Justice has demonstrated that they believe in the rule of law and executing their duties as they should. If we have to move forward with criminal contempt and refer to the Department of Justice, I have full faith that they will do their job to the letter of the law.

HAYES: All right, Congresswoman Stephanie Murphy, thank you very much.

MURPHY: Thanks so much.

HAYES: I want to show you a moment from September of last year of Donald Trump at the Rose Garden promoting the new Coronavirus testing strategy.


TRUMP: These new Abbott rapid point of care tests are easy to use and return results within just minutes. I would like to ask Admiral Gerard to come up and demonstrate how these tests are performed. He`ll do this very nicely, I think. Good luck. I hope you don`t test positive.


HAYES: Oh, that`s a funny joke. You could hear the light-hearted laughter in the Rose Garden that day which would not have been the case if everyone there knew that the President himself had tested positive for coronavirus two days before that event. He didn`t say anything.

Next, the stunning new revelations that the former president tested positive nearly a week earlier than we first knew and an investigation into the many people he exposed to the deadly virus along the way.



CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST: Donald Trump is a textbook narcissist, no regard for anybody but himself, always has been.

Today, we`ve learned that the depths of his selfishness and disregard for others were even deeper than previously known.

According to an upcoming book by none other than Trump`s own White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, then President Trump initially tested positive for COVID on September 26th of last year, that is nearly a week before he publicly disclosed his condition.

According to Meadows, Trump subsequently tested negative on the 26th right after the positive result. So, they decided to dismiss the positive result as a mistake.

OK, we got one negative, we got one positive, just wing it, I guess. Did the free leader -- the leader of the free world did the responsible thing? Did he quarantine out of abundance of caution? Did he use the amazing resources of the most powerful government on Earth to just like, suss out what was really the case? Was he positive or negative? No, of course not.

Here`s everything Donald Trump did do shortly before and after he tested positive for a highly contagious virus before lifesaving vaccines were available.

On the day of the 26th, right before Trump tested positive, he held that infamous celebration for his new Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, it`s a big pro-life party in there inside without masks or social distancing.

See Chris Christie in the background of that photo? He`s going to be in the ICU pretty soon.

Trump who was the middle of a heated campaign season then tested positive after that event, OK. Now, just put yourself in the situation of doing that.

You just saw some friends and you test positive, probably reach out and let them know that you just tested positive for COVID. That does not appear to have happened.

So, he test positive for that event. It`s before a scheduled rally in Pennsylvania, a rally which as you can see from the footage we are showing, he did not cancel.

The next day, get this, oh, it gets better. September 27th, Trump meets with Gold Star families at the White House. Those of course families of fallen soldiers, surviving members of U.S. -- surviving family members of U.S. servicemembers who have given their life and who are mourning their deaths. And he meets with them having tested positive. Again, without mask or social distancing. Look how close they are.

The day after that September 28th, Trump held two outdoor events, one of which, ironically, was on the subject of COVID testing.


HAYES: Now, that event struck people as pretty odd at the time. Look at that visual. Trump spoke notably distanced from the other attendees. Have you ever seen Mike Pence stand that far away from the guy, seriously?

At the event, Trump made this crack to then COVID testing czar.


DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I would like to ask Admiral Giroir to come up and demonstrate how these tests are performed. You`ll do this very nicely, I think. Good luck. I hope you don`t test positive.


HAYES: A joke, but not really.

Practically, Trump`s entire inner circle eventually tested positive for the virus, including Chris Christie, who was hospitalized as serious case, who got very, very good medical care, which is good for him. And I`m glad he did. That wasn`t true for everyone and got the virus and died.

Christie says that Trump actually called him while he was in the hospital.


CHRIS CHRISTIE, FORMER GOVERNOR OF NEW JERSEY: Then, he said to me, how do you think you got it?

Now, I`ve been in a room with him for four days before that. There were seven of us, and six of us have gotten it.

So, I`m like, well, pretty sure I got in the White House, Mr. President, you know, I think so. He said, yes, you know, I`m sure, but you`re not going to say you got it from me, are you?


HAYES: That`s what was on Donald Trump`s mind. Knowing he had tested positive just days before. Trump still traveled to Ohio to be in the room for the first debate with then candidate Joe Biden.

We later learned that Trump was not tested before that in-person event without masks with the septuagenarian on the stage who was also his opponent who could have gotten COVID, then died.

That was happening a lot. It`s been happening a lot to 70 plus year old, unvaccinated people as Joe Biden was at that point.

And in his book, Mark Meadows now admits Trump had been looking physically unwell.

Over the next two days, September 30th, and October 1st, Trump held multiple campaign events and fundraisers in multiple states including a fundraiser in New Jersey, where Trump spoke maskless to about 200 also maskless supporters.

That night, the world first learned Trump`s close aide, Hope Hicks tested positive. Trump himself then got a second positive test shortly after, something he lied about in an interview with Sean Hannity.


TRUMP: So, whether we quarantine or whether we have it, I don`t know. You know, it`s very hard when you`re with soldiers, when you`re with airmen, we`re with the Marines and I`m with -- and the police officers, I`m with them so much.

And when they come over here, it`s very hard to say stay back, stay back. You know, it`s a tough kind of a situation. It`s a terrible thing.

So, I just went for a test and we`ll see what happens. I mean, who knows.


HAYES: He knew at that point he had tested positive a second time, he knew he had tested positive before he did the event with the soldiers, and the airmen, Marines. And the implication of that is that he got COVID from the COVID-infested service members who just couldn`t stop themselves from hugging the president.

So, bear with me. Trump found out he tested positive in 26th of September. Again, right before that interview. And he still told Hannity he did not know if he had COVID. He also took the time to blame the military and police for potentially getting him sick.

Trump was hospitalized shortly after that, only recover thanks in part to the state of the art treatments and care he had access to as a president that was not made available to the hundreds of thousands of Americans who died horrible deaths under his watch.

And we should know that Trump has called the fact that he tested positive before the debate fake news because of course he has and I guess all this is not really surprising, though enraging.

The man is incapable at an almost cellular level. It`s extraordinary of ever considering anyone else`s welfare.

Case in point, just hours after that first positive test, he walked to the back of Air Force One, pretty tight quarters without a mask and talk to reporters at least one of whom then subsequently tested positive himself days later.

That reporters take on this revelation, next.



HAYES: On September 29th, 2020, the day of the first presidential debate Trump alive -- arrive late. Moderator Chris Wallace later said Trump was not tested before the debate because he was late.

He stood on the stage with then-candidate Joe Biden without masks and his family and entourage sat in the audience also flouting the events mask requirements.

Trump even had the gall to say this after he tested positive and held that distanced Rose Garden event.


TRUMP: I mean, I have a mask right here. I put a mask on, you know, when I think I need it.

Tonight, as an example everybody`s had a test and you`ve had social distancing and all of the things that you have to but I wear masks when needed. When needed, I wear a mask.


HAYES: He looks awful there, doesn`t he? I wonder why maybe because he had COVID.

Understandably, there`s been a lot of talk about how Trump almost gave Joe Biden COVID but it`s likely his carelessness did get a number of other people sick.

Michael Shear, a New York Times White House correspondent and two-time Pulitzer Prize winning reporter.

He tweeted today "Hours after he received the call from Meadows informing him of a positive test, Trump came to the back of Air Force One without a mask and talk with reporters for about 10 minutes. I was wearing a mask, but still got COVID, testing positive several days later." And Michael Shear joins me now.

Michael, great to have you. I guess just first, your reaction to this revelation, which I should say has subsequently been confirmed by the New York Times and the denials such as it is from NBC and the denial such as it is from Trump is not a denial. He says, well, I tested negative later. That`s precisely what the story is. So, your reaction to this?

MICHAEL SHEAR, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, NEW YORK TIMES: Look, I mean, this sort of confirms our suspicions all along. I mean, I -- the largely the only thing I had done at that time that could have exposed me to COVID and ultimately, my wife, who got COVID a couple of days later after I did, was being on the back of that plane. You know, that was the time when we were all being so careful not going to restaurants, not going to grocery stores and the like.


SHEAR: And so, I`ve always assumed that I got it on that plane, I think what this confirms is that I actually likely got it from the president himself.

Because, you know, he tested positive at a time when those tests are -- you know, those instant test, those rapid tests really had a likelihood of showing a false negative, that was the problem with those tests were.

So, if you actually tested positive with one of those rapid tests, you likely had been sick probably for a little bit of time.

HAYES: I should just note just to make a point here about the story as far as we know it from Meadows, which is that there was a -- he`s taken off, there`s word there`s a positive test and they test again.

Now, it`s completely unclear to me how they test again, they`re not swabbing him again. I don`t know, they got another -- they took two swabs and there`s one like-- I don`t actually understand it, nor am I going to concede that that`s what happened in the absence of any other confirmation, I just want to say.

SHEAR: Yes, no, I think that`s right. I had the same thought. It doesn`t make sense when you -- when you take one of those swabs for an instant test, you immediately use it and ruin it, you can`t just use it again for a second test. And the likelihood that they were taking double swabs of the president is unlikely.

I suppose it`s possible that they tested him again, on Air Force One or after he landed in Pennsylvania before the rally, I think that`s unlikely.

But like I say, either way, a positive test for one of the rapid test is a much more concerning event than a negative test. So, So I would suspect that the doctors would have said, hey, even if you had a negative test, that`s probably a false negative, let`s be real concerned here.

And I think that`s what this whole incident underscores what we`ve known all along, which is that this White House didn`t take seriously the precautions that the rest of us were trying so hard to follow.

They weren`t wearing masks, they weren`t paying attention to the results of the test. And you know, essentially shrugging off the concerns about the other people that they might be putting in at some risk.

HAYES: I would just and again, I`m going to editorialize here, and this is not your view, it is mine. I would go one step further and say it`s far worse than that. There are people that were reckless, and we knew they were reckless. To the extent -- I mean, they got a positive test from the president.

Now, it`s unclear what happens afterwards. My reading between the lines, what it looks like to me is, to the extent they got a negative test, they`re like, good enough for us, we`re out, don`t test him again, in case it pops a positive, we don`t want that we sure as heck don`t want the run- up to the debate. We sure as heck don`t want to cancel events.

So, it`s like it`s worse than reckless. It`s reckless, with a positive test hanging over your head.

SHEAR: And I think as a journalist who, you know, presses for transparency and presses to hold the administration accountable, the fact that we did not know any of this for all -- through all of these important events through the, you know, another week of the campaign. And look, it never made any sense.


SHEAR: And when they finally told us that he had tested positive, it never made any sense that he got so sick the next day that he had to go to the hospital with breathing problems. That`s not how COVID works, you test positive and over the course of a series of days, the disease gets worse.

So, I mean, it`s just from my perspective, one of the big sins here is, you know, is just lying to the American public, not being straight with the American public about the health of the leader of the free world.

HAYES: That point about the the timeframe has always been key, which is that it`s on average, about between seven days to 11 days of onset of symptoms and symptomatic cases that people are getting hospitalized.

In this case, we have a positive test in the hospitalization the next day. And that never made any sense. Essentially never progresses that rapidly.

This makes much more sense. But when you go back and look at that timeline, I think we might revisit this again. It`s -- it is a shocking timeline.

Michael Shear, well, I`m glad you recovered, I`m glad your wife recovered. I hope that`s true of everyone that came out of this cluster. I don`t know if it is, thank you very much, Michael.

SHEAR: Sure.

HAYES: Next, why the supply chain crisis may be a thing of the past possibly, how we got back on track and whether it`ll last, after this.


JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The CEOs I met with this week reported that their inventories are up, shelves are well stocked and they`re ready to meet the consumer demand for the holidays.

I can`t promise that every person will get every gift they want on time. Only Santa Claus can keep that promise.





BIDEN: If you watch the news recently, you might think the shelves and all our stores are empty across the country. That parents won`t be able to get presents for their children on holidays this holiday season.

But here`s the deal, for the vast majority of the country, that`s not what`s happening. Because of the actions the administration has taken in partnership with business and labor, retailers and grocery stores freight movers and railroads and those shelves are going to be stocked.


HAYES: Today, President Joe Biden announced several new White House steps to ease supply chain issues. These come after a bunch of stuff they did weeks ago.

Today, they announced eliminating certain kinds of port fees, expanding flexibility on truck driver hours and and to be clear, the supply chain really has been a big problem. It`s been a very weird situation.

But remember, this video from the Port of Los Angeles in October, dozens of containerships idled out in the water, because there was so much congestion, they couldn`t come on and offload and then, there was containers sitting there that they couldn`t get on trucks.

So, in October, Biden pledged his administration would focus our resources on easing some of these backlogs. And I think at the time, a lot of people thought, well, this is just symbolism, it`s got to look like you`re doing something, but it seems to maybe have worked?

I mean, according to the White House, the number of long dwelling shipping containers sitting on docks are down 41 percent since November 1st. Retail inventories are up nearly three percent from this same time last year.

And it`s not just the White House, Walmart CEO has said he feels optimistic about his company`s inventory headed holidays. Black Friday sales were up nearly 30 percent this year.

And on top of that, today, the payroll company ADP announced that private payrolls grew in November by 534,000 jobs, a third straight month of solid job growth in the private sector from their data.

And look, you know, it`s often the case in news, there`s an expression we don`t cover the plains of land (PH), right? When things go well, or things are working, that`s not news.

But it really was news when everything was screwed up a month ago. And right now, there are pretty good reasons to feel like we`re on a much better path and the economy, you can feel pretty optimistic about.

Betsy Stevenson is a Labor Economist who served on the Council of Economic Advisers from 2013 to 2015 under President Obama. She`s also a Professor of Public Policy and Economics at the University of Michigan.

Betsy, I got to say, you know, I think the supply chain stuff always struck me as not necessarily under the president`s control that much, A.

B. making -- made a fair amount of sense, it was a -- it just been -- all of this has been so weird. I compared it to like, when a parking lot, let`s out after like a football game, right? And everyone wants to go and like you sit there in the parking lot. And it is frustrating, but it`s like, there`s just too many people for the amount of space.

But it also seems like whatever they`ve done, maybe it`s the private sector, maybe it`s government, it has gotten appreciably better.

BETSY STEVENSON, FORMER MEMBER OF PRESIDENT OBAMA`S COUNCIL ON ECONOMIC ADVISERS: It`s definitely getting a lot better. But you know, it is some turbulent times, there were a lot of companies that made a bunch of stuff that they were expecting us to buy in 2020. And then, we didn`t end up buying it, right? So, prices felt like crazy. We didn`t all get together for Thanksgiving of 2020. And we saw prices coming down because people couldn`t sell their stuff.

So, then they thought, oh, I got burned in 2020. How much do I really need to supply for 2021? That`s been part of the problem.

And yet, we`re all like, oh, my God, we`ve been waiting so long to get back out there and the demand is even higher than anyone expected.

Now, there`s a game right now where sellers are having to figure out where we as consumers are going to be. And they got to meet that demand before we actually show them what it is.

So, it`s a guessing game. And that`s one of the reasons why we get a lot of these mix-ups between supply and demand. We see this going on right now with oil prices, where the price of the pump is still high. But a bunch of oil companies are really afraid that the new -- you know, the new variant of COVID is going to cause oil prices to collapse in the future. So, while we`re paying high prices at the pump, prices are collapsing in Futures markets.

HAYES: Yes, I saw that today. And I mean, I get that`s the other kind of irony here. You know, Jason Furman, who I know you`ve worked with, an economist, he was in the Obama administration. You served in the Obama administration as an economist.

You know, he had this tweet a while ago about some of the supply chain issues and inflation, saying this, -- something like these are good problems to have.

And what he meant by that is, these are the -- these are the knock-on effects of an economy that`s got robust demand coming back for people with some disposable income. We`re seeing wages rising, the bottom 77 percent -- 70 percent of the -- of the labor market, and a bunch of conservatives jumped on him like you think these are good problems.

But the flip of that is like, right, if there`s another terrible new variant, like, you can have cheap oil and cheap airfare, cheap hotels, lots of cheap stuff if everything shuts down again, but I rather have this than that.

STEVENSON: Yes, I mean, that`s exactly right. That the reason that we`ve seen some inflationary pressure, which the Federal Reserve was calling transitory, and now they want to back away from that word, although the ECB in Europe is still referring to it as transitory, we call it transitory because we think the inflationary pressures are going to go away as supply meets demand.

What happened was the economy came back stronger, faster than people expected. And as a result, demand got ahead of supply.

HAYES: Yes. And look at the -- you look of the Eurozone. I mean, this is -- this is the inflation in the Eurozone, where they`re setting historic rates of inflation 4.9 percent, November 2021. That`s not the U.S. Fed and that is not Joe Biden who is doing that.

That is the fact that there are big structural factors at play in a once in a century pandemic recovery. And I do think that like the message of the White House is steer the ship, keep -- you know, steer the ship through this. And the only way out is through, you want an economy -- a virus that`s suppressed, an economy that`s roaring by summer of next year.

STEVENSON: Yes, I mean, one of the things that frustrates me the most is people looking at the kind of support that the administration has given the economy with, you know, the -- you know, the stimulus bill in March of this year. And they`re like, think, that kind of stuff is actually why we had such strong growth. It`s not the cause of all our inflationary pressure. It`s actually the cause of our strong economic growth.

And I`m really grateful that it was there to support families when they needed it.


HAYES: Agreed. Betsy Stevenson, thank you very much. That is ALL IN on this Wednesday night. "THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW" starts right now. Good evening, Rachel.