Summary
Interview with Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA). The U.S. and Russia agree to continue diplomatic talks as standoff over Ukraine continues.
Transcript
CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST: Once again, we finished all the world`s problems here in the final segment of "ALL IN". Thank you both, Senator Ed Markey, Congressman Ro Khanna. That was great.
That is "ALL IN" for this week.
THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW starts now with Mehdi Hasan in for Rachel.
Good evening, Mehdi.
MEHDI HASAN, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, Chris, and thank you so much for that. Thanks for solving the world`s problems.
And thanks at home for joining us this hour. Rachel has the night off. But she will be back on Monday.
And what a week this week has been. It feels like several week`s worth of news have been crammed into the last few days. It doesn`t all fit.
We start with a brand-new development that has just broken today. Starting in June of last year, journalists published hair-raising reports about threats and harassment of election workers across the country. They focused, in particular, on the state of Georgia, in large part, because that is where Donald Trump`s elections lies were particularly focused.
"Reuters" reported in detail threats and harassment against Georgia secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, a Republican, and his wife after Raffensperger refused to bow to Trump`s pressure to overturn Joe Biden`s win there. Weeks after the first "Reuters", the Justice Department announced it was launching a special task force dedicated to threats against election workers, saying, quote, a threat to any election official, worker or volunteer is a threat to democracy.
Well, it has been almost six months since that task force was announced. But today, it filed its first charges. A Texas man was indicted today for threatening election and government officials in Georgia. The indictment does not name the official this man threatened to killed, referring to them as officials the A, B and C.
According to the indictment, this man posted a message to Craigslist on January last year titled, quote, Georgia patriots, it`s time to kill official A, the Chinese agent, $10,000. I guess the $10,000 is what he was offering to pay to have that official killed?
He then goes on to talk about putting bullets in three Georgia officials calling them treasonous traitors. As I said, we do not know who the election officials are that this man threatened. As for the weird stuff about one weird election official being a Chinese agent, obviously, there were all kind of conspiracy theories pushed by the Trump campaign countries, including China, tampering with the vote count.
But I will also mention, just a few days before this threat was posted, then President Trump accused Georgia secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, of hiding all the supposed election fraud, because his brother works for China. A conspiracy theory that managed to gain traction, despite the fact that not only did Brad Raffensperger not have a brother who works for China, Brad Raffensperger doesn`t even have a brother.
So, this guy in Texas has been charged for these threats, the first case from the Justice Department task force, to combat threats against election workers. It`s a start. But, you know, is strangely fitting that the first charge for threatening election officials should come out of Georgia.
Georgia really has been ground zero for harassment of election workers, because it`s been ground zero for Donald Trump`s campaign to overturn the 2020 election, and undermine the new administration of elections, for the next time around. I mean, this guy in Texas didn`t wake up one morning and decide he wanted to randomly threatened to kill election officials, in Georgia.
Sorry, he did not think of it on his own. A pressure campaign against elections officials has consequences. Consequences, that were warned about all the way back in December 2020, by Georgia`s top elections administrator, a Republican. You may remember this moment.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GABRIEL STERLING, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, GEORGIA SECRETARY OF STATE`S OFFICE: I`m going to do my best to keep it together, because it has all gone too far. All of it. The straw that broke the camel`s back today.
This 20-year-old contractor for a voting system company, just trying to do his job. His family is getting harassed now, there`s a news out there with his name on it. It`s not right.
This kid took a job, he just took a job, and it`s just wrong. I can begin to explain the level of anger I have about this. Every American, every Georgian, every Republican, Democrat, should have the same level of anger.
Mr. President, it looks like you likely lost the state of Georgia. We`re investigating, there`s always a possibility. I get it, you have the right to go for the courts.
What you don`t have the ability to do, and you need to step up and say this, is stop inspiring people to give potential acts of violence. Someone is going to get, someone is going to get shot, someone is going to get killed, and it`s not right.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:05:03]
HASAN: It was clear. All the way back in December 2020, that the campaign of pressure and harassment against election officials by Donald Trump and his allies was producing a campaign of threats and harassment against elections officials by his supporters. No one is being killed and thank goodness, but elections workers and officials in Georgia, and across the country, are being terrorized. And they`re leaving their jobs in droves.
We are reminded this week, it`s not just those threats that are being investigated, Trump`s pressure campaign itself is very much under criminal investigation.
The district attorney in Fulton County, Georgia, this week moved to empanel a special grand jury in her investigation into Trump`s attempts to mess with the election in Georgia. That investigation sent us on that infamous phone call made to Brad Raffensperger, pressuring him to find more votes.
If that special grand jury is approved, it will be able to issue subpoenas for testimony and evidence. It wasn`t just that Georgia case, potentially taking that big lead forward, this week. This may have been the worst week of legal developments for Donald Trump, his family, and his allies, since he left office.
This week also brought new allegations from New York`s attorney general, of possible fraud at Trump`s business. A filing this week lays out the most detailed accusations yet, of potentially fraudulent business practices of the Trump Organization. As Attorney General Tish James attempts to compel testimony from Trump, his son Don Jr., and his daughter Ivanka, suggesting that her years-long investigation, maybe nearing its end.
The January six investigation, this week, asked for testimony from Ivanka Trump in a letter that was laid out in stunning detail, how much the committee has learned about what was going on inside the Oval Office, as rioters ransacked the Capitol in January 6 and how little Trump did to stop the violence, even as those around him, including his own daughter begged him to intervene.
There were also damning developments on the fake electors scheme. This was a scheme in which Republicans in states Joe Biden won, created inside certificates a certain that Trump and won their state. They sent these fake slates of electors to Congress. There were multiple reports, this week, that this plot was pushed and coordinated directly by the Trump campaign, specifically by, who else, Rudy Giuliani.
That comes as officials in multiple states, this week announced investigations or even criminal referrals related to that scheme, suggesting that there could alternately be criminal charges for those involved, for forgery or other related crimes. One Democratic congressman for Wisconsin today asked Attorney General Merrick Garland to look into the matter.
Speaking of Rudy Giuliani, there is news just tonight, that thousands of his communications have been turned over to federal prosecutors in New York, who are investigating Giuliani`s dealings in Ukraine. I know, it`s hard to keep up. All of that doesn`t even cover what might be Donald Trump`s biggest loss this week, the Supreme Court`s refusal to block the National Archives from handing over hundreds of pages from Trump`s records to the January six investigation. Trump had been fighting it for months, but now, those records are being delivered to the investigators.
And, oh boy, the first document that we`ve gotten a look at is a doozy. It is a draft executive order, turned over from the files of a White House lawyer, that would`ve ordered the defense secretary to seize voting machines. This never issued executive order says the defense secretary must seize all the voting machines because all voting machine companies, all of them, were infiltrated by foreign powers, who change on the vote totals, and made it just seem like Trump lost. Which is of course stunning, but also, can I just say, at the end of a week in which Republicans have been relentlessly hammering Democrats over their voting rights bill, calling it a federal takeover of elections, here is evidence from Donald Trump apparently considering an actual federal takeover of elections, and election machines.
Look, to be clear, a lot of this draft executive order is written in language that doesn`t bear any resemblance to like an actual presidential executive order. But Betsy Woodruff Swan of "Politico" points out, that the opening of the document cites a number of so-called presidential authorities, including a classified document that is not previously been reported on, which may suggest that someone involved in drafting the document had access to this to sensitive government information. That said, we do not know who drafted it, nor how seriously it was considered.
What has been previously reported, that some proposal like this was debated in the Oval Office on December the 18th, 2020. This document is dated the 16th of December. But this is only the first Trump White House record we`ve seen that has been turned over to the January six investigation. What on earth -- what else are they going to turn up?
Joining us now is Congressman Pete Aguilar, Democrat from California, and a member of the January six investigation.
[21:10:01]
Congressman, thank you for joining us this evening.
Much to discuss.
REP. PETE AGUILAR (D-CA): Good evening to you.
HASAN: This draft executive order obtained by "Politico" would have directed the secretary of defense of the United States to seize voting machines. This is in line with proposals we know that Sidney Kraken Powell presented to Trump in 2020.
What do you make of this revelation? Does the committee have any leads into who might have drafted this document?
AGUILAR: Well, these type of things are absolutely dangerous and scary, to think that the former administration had actually gone to these steps, and these lengths. I`m not going to talk about specific documents that we`ve received, but I will say, we`ve received hundreds of pages of documents from the Archives. They`re responsive to the Supreme Court decision, in which the former president lost. And so, we continue to go over that production.
What I can tell you is that, these documents will prove fruitful and helpful to aid in our investigation. To sign a clear light on what happened, leading up to January 6th. It will give us more insight into what we have already learned, through depositions, interviews, as well as public reporting and sourcing outside of that.
This is -- this is incredibly helpful to our efforts, but it is dangerous and scary what the prior administration was planning.
HASAN: Yeah, I often fall back on quote, what would you say if you saw this in another country? This is crazy stuff.
NBC News, Congressman, have confirmed that the committee hasn`t possession, all 700 plus paces of documents that Trump tried to shield from your committee. How does your committee plan to scrutinize those documents, and will the plug to see them in short order?
Chairman Bennie Thompson suggested this week, that we might get to see them.
AGUILAR: Well, at some point, you know, we`re going to want to cite some of these in public hearings, as well as in a final report, that we produce. And upon the conclusion of that, additional items may be made plug.
But what I can tell you, we do plan on turning the page from the investigative side of our efforts into more public hearings in the future. And so, that`s where we will continue to share with the public exactly what we have learned, what the prior administration was doing to thwart and undercut a free and fair election, all of the efforts, and where they originated.
In the White House, how they tried to use the Department of Justice. All of these efforts that we know, and that have been out in the public, and these documents and what we continue to learn --
HASAN: Yeah.
AGUILAR: -- will serve as the connective tissue to a lot of that.
HASAN: I think I can speak for a lot of viewers of the show when I say that there`s a lot of those of us waiting to hear these hearings.
Congressman, turning to the fraudulent electors, you have called the submission of a fraudulent elector document a, quote, dangerous precedent. The committee is reportedly looking into that. A coordinated effort by Trump allies in at least five states.
Has the committee reached out to any of these fraudulent electors yet? If not, are there plans to do so?
AGUILAR: We`ve had conversations with different states. Elections officials, and we`ve had conversations with some of these -- individuals within these contested states, but I`m not going to talk about who we`ve interviewed and had discussions with. But we aren`t just focusing on the Washington, D.C. beltway. We have gone out into the state, having conversations that will be helpful and fruitful to our efforts.
HASAN: Is it bizarre that in a week where the Republicans rejected all of your voting rights bills in the Senate, claiming that this is a Democratic Party federal takeover of elections? We`re seeing the Republican Party at the state level -- the federal government, allegedly, trying to direct Republicans to overturn states -- slates of electors, and take over their election machines. The irony is pretty rich.
AGUILAR: And the silence is deafening, right, from some of my Republican colleagues to me, while they continue to talk about the efforts to expand the Voting Rights Act, which by the way was passed in unanimous way 15 years ago, in the Senate. Those types of ironies aren`t lost in a lot of us, who continue to stand for free and fair elections and wanting to make sure that everybody that legally can vote does have the ability to vote. In each of the states, all of the efforts in the laws that they continue to put in the way of people exercising their franchise and the right to vote.
HASAN: Congressman, your committee colleague, Congressman Adam Schiff, has said that the committee has not made a decision in possibly subpoenaing Ivanka Trump to appear for testimony. Has the committee heard back from Ivanka Trump? And how long will the committee wait for her response before making a decision to subpoena?
[21:15:03]
AGUILAR: I`m not aware of response from Ivanka Trump, and like my colleague said, like Chairman Schiff said, we have not made any decisions yet. What we do know from our other interviews and from public reporting is that Ivanka Trump was there in the room with the former president as a lot of this was happening. As well as, during the conversations when the former president called Vice President Pence to continue to pressure campaign up until the morning of January 6th.
So she heard at least one side of that conversation. So we feel that she has something to share. We feel that will help aid in our efforts. If someone was truly concerned about protecting democracy they would come before our committee willingly and voluntarily. So, we haven`t heard anything yet from her today though.
HASAN: I can say quite confidently without hearing from Ivanka, the public hearing, she`s not really interested in saving democracy. But that`s just my view.
Congressman Pete Aguilar, Democrat from California, member of the January 6 committee, thank you for your time tonight. I appreciate it.
AGUILAR: Thank you, Mehdi.
HASAN: Up next here tonight, listening to your spouse is important. But what if your spouse is an extremist who spout conspiracy theories and cheered on the January 6th rioters and you are United States Supreme Court justice? What do you do then?
More on that next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:20:38]
HASAN: All right. What I`m about to show you now is a social media post shared by a prominent conservative activist just before the 2020 election. It shows Hillary Clinton, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Vice Presidential candidate Kamala Harris all shaking hands with people reportedly to be family members of George Soros. We blurred their faces because we don`t actually know who those people are.
And you can see it`s a pretty classic example of the anti-Semitic conspiracy theory that Jewish philanthropist George Soros is some kind of secret puppet master to Democratic Party politicians, quote, who is really running the Democratic Party... the Soros family.
Quote, George Soros is training his family to carry on his evil legacy.
Here is another social media post from that same conservative activist from the morning of the January 6th insurrection, just before insurrectionists stormed the U.S. Capitol. Quote, watch MAGA crowd today, best with Right Side Broadcasting and then C-Span for what the country does. Love MAGA people.
And a little later on January 6th, the same conservative activist posted again. Quote, God bless each of you, standing up or praying!
You might say, well, it`s kind of bonkers conspiracies that we had to get used to from the online pro-Trump right in recent years. It might have been posted by Mike Flynn or the MyPillow guy or maybe the QAnon shaman.
But it wasn`t. It wasn`t any of those people. All of that MAGA world nonsense was posted by Ginni Thomas, the wife of sitting Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
For decades now, even before her husband was on the Supreme Court, Ginni Thomas has been active in the fringier parts of the conservative movement.
During the Trump era, she ratcheted it up a notch, promoting conspiracy theories about leftist cues, mocking victims of school shootings and, of course, making baseless claims about Democrats stealing elections.
You might be saying, so what, sure, that all sounds nothing lots of people post strange things on social media. It doesn`t their spouse has necessarily endorsed or believed these things as well.
But Ginni Thomas is not just posting things on social media. Last year, "The Washington Post" first reported that Ginni Thomas was active in an online forum of former law clerks of Clarence Thomas where "The New Yorker" reports she openly fought with Thomas`s former clerks about Trump`s election loss, alongside Trump lawyer and big lie promoter, John Eastman.
Imagine that. You are one of the few people in the American legal community to get the prestigious just job, clerking for Supreme Court justice and the boss` wife is berating you about Trump losing the election.
She`s also attacked the January 6th investigation and called on the Republicans to retaliate against Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney for their participation in it -- as her husband sits on the court weighing decisions about that very investigation.
Which is why no one should have been surprised when the Supreme Court issued its 8-1 ruling ordering the National Archives to hand Trump`s records over those investigators earlier this week, and the one justice who sided the Trump in that situation was, drum roll, Clarence Thomas.
What would you say if you saw this in another country? A judge on the high court trying to shield a disgraced former leader from investigated of instigating a coup while the wife of that judge attacks the investigators and promotes the lie that spurred the coup in the first place. And what, if anything, can be done about it here?
Joining us is "New Yorker" chief Washington correspondent Jane Mayer, who has a must-read new piece at the New Yorker titled Is Ginni Thomas a threat to the Supreme Court?
Thank you for being here, Jane.
In your fascinating piece -- it`s a stunning piece. You quote a law professor, an expert on legal ethics who says the appearance created by Clarence and Ginni Thomas is awful. They look like a mom and pop political hack group where she does the political stuff and he does the judging.
Now, a lot of you at home might say, yeah, she`s awful. She says crazy things. But her husband shouldn`t be responsible for her wife`s views and the wife he shouldn`t have to stop her activism because of her husband`s job? What do you say to that?
JANE MAYER, CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORKER: Well, I understand the argument and I certainly don`t think that wives should be unable to have separate careers from her their husbands.
[21:25:01]
But there`s something important going on, and something that struck me when doing this reporting, which is that she is involved in substantial ways in leaderships roles with groups and activists who have businesses in front of her husband`s court. She is not just taking a separate role --
HASAN: I think we just lost Jane Mayer in the middle of a very interesting answer about Ginni Thomas. We`re going to see if we can bring her back because she`s done that fantastic reporting about those conflicts of interest involving Ginni Thomas -- we -- I`m just hearing we`re not getting her back right now. We are going to take a break and check with our technical gremlins and see if we can get her back.
Stay with us for more on this and many other stories.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:30:00]
HASAN: We were just speaking with "The New Yorker`s" chief Washington correspondent, Jane Mayer, about her fascinating new look into the life of Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
In that piece, she recounts, all sorts of interesting moments, including from around the time of Brett Kavanaugh`s confirmation hearings. At that time, Ginni Thomas had a private panel discussion, which she told a conservative crowd the deep state is serious and it`s resisting President Trump. She declared twice that are adversaries were trying to kill people, and draw applause by saying, may we all have guns, and concealed carry to handle what`s coming. Charming.
Joining us now is Jane Mayer, who wrote that piece.
Jane, great to have you back, we had a bit of a technical issue ago.
You are telling us about the conflicts of interest involving some of the conservative groups that she leads, or sits on the boards of, and the cases that come before the courts involving those conservative groups. One of the shocking examples of stood out to me from your piece, in terms of conflict, is the Muslim ban decision in 2018. Not just because I`m Muslim myself, Clarence Thomas was one of the justices who upheld Trump`s Muslim ban, without revealing that Ginni was a paid consultant to one of the far-right groups that had submitted an amicus brief to the court in favor of the ban, saying Islam needs to be confronted. And he just never revealed that.
MAYER: Absolutely. I mean, she was paid a lot. I mean, over two years, it was about $234,000, in order to represent Frank Gaffney`s group. He`s the anti-Muslim activist.
HASAN: Yeah.
MAYER: And he`s admitted an amicus brief to the court on the issue, and Clarence Thomas heard the case, nobody ever mention that she was being paid by one side in the case. If you look at Clarence Thomas`s disclosures, you see absolutely no evidence of this whatsoever.
The only way I found it was by having to look at the IRS filings from the group that Frank Gaffney runs.
And so, I mean, there are rules, and they do apply to almost every judge in this country, that say, if your spouse have an interest in a case, you need to recuse. If a reasonable person thinks that there is an image of partiality, if it looks like the judge might have a conflict, it can`t be fair. He supposed to step down. But that applies to only the lower courts, not the Supreme Court, because it holds itself above the ethics code that applies to the rest of the judges in this country.
HASAN: And as you point out in your piece, Sonia Sotomayor, Brett Kavanaugh, Stephen Breyer, they`ve all recused themselves when friends or family have been in a case that came before the court. But Clarence Thomas has never recused himself for a case that involved a group linked to Ginni, his wife.
Were you surprised to see Clarence Thomas as the only justice to oppose releasing Trump`s records to the 1/6 committee, just weeks after his wife was attacking the 1/6 committee?
MAYER: Well, I mean, I think, to me, the issue is that it suggests that he`s not judging issues fairly. He may be -- it raises questions, at least, about whether he`s favoring his wife`s political activism. I think, that`s dangerous, as he said for himself, for the court.
You really need the country to look at that incredibly important court and to trust that it`s doing its best, whatever direction it comes from ideologically, to arrive at justice, and a fair decision. And I think the problem with Ginni Thomas`s activism is, it`s almost impossible to see all the things that she`s involved with, that are in front of the court, and not have some questions whether it taints his point of view.
HASAN: Well, a lot of us have questions about what Ginni Thomas was saying on January the 6th. She says she put those social media post up before the violence kicked off, but we were all wondering when her views were on January the 6th.
Let me ask you this, what if anything can be done to fix this issue? Because you can`t force a justice to recuse themselves, you can`t forcibly remove them from the court. You can impeach them, but it`s only been tried once and it didn`t succeed. So, is there any rules that can shape be changed or anything that can be done?
MAYER: There actually is quite a bit that can be done. There have been some efforts. There are been several bills that have been proposed, in Congress, to try to get the court to abide by a judicial code, an ethics code, like the lower courts.
I think it`s an issue that has a certain amount of traction. There is a lot of interest, even some bipartisan interest in it.
[21:35:04]
And I think there`s also a good chance that after people have taken a close look at this financial issue, involving Ginni Thomas, that they may close some loopholes that have to do with disclosure, because if really the Supreme Court justice`s wife can be paid an unlimited amount of money by a secret client, of some sort, and it`s not visible, that`s a problem.
HASAN: That`s an understatement. It`s certainly a problem. It`s a huge problem. It goes to the very heart of our justice system.
Jane Mayer, we appreciate your reporting on this. Jane Mayer is chief Washington correspondent at "The New Yorker" -- please do check out her latest piece on Ginni Thomas. Thank you.
MAYER: Thanks.
HASAN: Now, to the headlines you may have seen this week about board of elections in Lincoln County, Georgia, trying to close all but one of the county seven polling places. This Wednesday, a group of activists handle liver to petition with 600 signatures, from locals, opposed to the change to the county board of elections. The board had been scheduled to vote that night, the board argues that a single problem place would be more affordable for the small county, lead to better run elections, and would be more accessible.
The activists argue that a single polling place would mean some county residents would have to drive more than 20 miles out of the way, just to put a ballot. The board was supposed to vote on that issue Wednesday night, but because of these petitions, the vote never happened.
Now, this may sound like a lot of stories you`ve heard before. Democrats fighting their local officials for the right to vote. Check this out. Lincoln County is about 70 percent white, and cast 68 percent of its votes for Donald Trump in 2020. Nevertheless, these activists spent months going door to door collecting signatures to make sure that it doesn`t get harder for anyone to vote in Lincoln.
They are not partisan, big D democrats. They`re small D democrats, supporting democracy and everyone. Nationally, though, we know that more than 1,688 polling places have been shuttered, since the Supreme Court decision, Shelby v. Holder in 2013. That`s when the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act, 1,688 places close.
Before that decision, Georgia was one in nine states that was not allowed to changes election laws, in ways that would negatively impact minority voters ability to cast a ballot without federal approval. In Georgia specifically, 10 percent of all polling locations have been closed across the state, since that Supreme Court decision.
Just last year, the Republican controlled state legislature in Georgia passed major new restrictive voting laws that made it harder to vote absentee, or would drop boxes, making physical polling places all the more important, which is part of why, with this group data so interested. They fought back in a way that worked.
Legally, in Georgia, if you can get 20 percent of the registered voters in a voting district to sign a petition opposing the closing of a polling place, it must stay open. This group of activists gathered enough signatures to meet that threshold for three of Lincoln County`s seven polling places. The board of elections is still verifying those signatures, but as for now, they have successfully delivered on this issue and may very well have saved them from being consolidated.
Joining us now, Reverend Denise Freeman, a Lincoln County minister an activist who is key leader in the signature drive, that succeeded in putting the plan to rollback the number of polling sites on hold.
Reverend, thank you so much for being here.
Can you help us understand logistically, practically, would it would mean for the residents of Lincoln County to go from seven polling places, to one? Describe that challenge for us, please.
REV. DENISE FREEMAN, LINCOLN COUNTY MINISTER AND ACTIVIST: We are a very long county. For instance, I live in the northern end of the county, which would be about 26 to 30 minutes just for the people on this end to go and vote into the new proposed precinct. That is unfair to all of our residents in the northern and, when we currently voted midway, which is about eight or nine minutes from where we live.
So, I don`t understand why they would put this kind of situation, when there is no legitimate reason to close any precincts, in 2022. We should be affording people more access to the voting process, not decreasing it. And with Senate bill 202, that`s exactly would happened. With Senate bill two 282, into 283, it`s like the people who are empower want to secure their power and control, by making it harder for people to access the voting precincts.
[21:40:07]
And that`s just not fair, nor is it right. We have to do everything we can to stop this. And we have, and we hope this works. That`s our prayer.
HASAN: And in terms of trying to stop, it a lot of the media coverage around this made it out to be an issue for Democrats. From the local level, less partisan than that. Are the Republicans in your community who don`t want these polling places to close?
FREEMAN: Yes. We`ve heard from citizens of both parties, even signed on the petitions, and they too want access in their own communities. They want to keep their polling places open.
People in this community do not work in this community. We have people who work in Athens, Georgia, Augusta, Georgia, and South Carolina, because there`s no jobs in Lincolnton, or Lincoln County, Georgia. So, by the time to make it back to this county, to vote, they can get to their local polls, but to drive one additional 12-15 miles just a vote in one precinct, in the city of Lincolnton (ph), it is just unreal. It`s unfair. It`s not right.
HASAN: We spoke with the board of elections today, they believe this petition wasn`t necessary. They said they held public hearings on it. They sent letters every household, and didn`t hear opposition. It`s on a partisan issue. There are Democrats involved in closing down these polling places.
What do you make of that response from them?
FREEMAN: Well, the first thing, they did not send notification to every voter in the county. What they did was send letters to every property owner in the county. And we have people that own property in several other states across the United States. I myself did not get a letter. So, I have talked to many, many citizens of this county, black, white, Republicans, Democrats, who say they didn`t get letters either.
So, you know, this is not a partisan issue, this is a human issue. This is an issue that everyone should be afforded the luxury of voting.
HASAN: Well said. And we appreciate you coming on the show to talk about this issue.
Reverend Denise Freeman, we`ll have to leave it there. Thank you for your time.
FREEMAN: Thank you for having me. God bless you.
HASAN: More to come here, including a blatant display of Republican hypocrisy, and some high stakes diplomacy from America`s top diplomat today, trying to head off what could become the biggest land war in Europe since World War II.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:47:00]
HASAN: Let`s keep talking. That appears to be the take-away message after yet another round of diplomatic talks between the U.S. and Russia over escalating tensions at Ukraine`s border.
Today, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov held a 90-minute meeting in Geneva with no clear path forward. Blinken warned Russia that any invasion of Ukraine would be met with a, quote, swift, severe and united response, while Lavrov denied that a massive Russian force on Ukraine`s border was a prelude to an invasion. Okay then.
Russia has repeatedly said it wants NATO to roll back its military presence in eastern European and to not make Ukraine a member of the alliance.
Blinken said today that U.S. will respond to Russia`s demands next week in writing. But in the meantime, they would keep talking. Today`s latest high stakes meeting comes amid claims from Ukraine`s military intelligence services that Russia is sending mercenary with tanks and artillery units into rebel held territories in eastern Ukraine. The U.S. has responded to Russia`s buildup by getting Baltic states, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia approval to send lethal weapons to Ukraine.
And now, tonight, we`re starting to get first images of that lethal aid, that Biden recently authorized for Ukraine. This was tweeted out by the U.S. embassy Kiev, quote, the shipment includes close to 200,000 pounds of lethal aid, including ammunition for the frontline defenders of Ukraine.
Efforts to reach a diplomatic breakthrough continued, but today we got a glimpse of what might happen if those efforts fail. This "Foreign Affairs" op-ed titled the day after the Russia attacks, what war in Ukraine would look like and how Russia should respond," paints a stark picture. Quote, the moment a war starts, the geopolitical landscape will become significantly more challenging for U.S. national security, Washington seemed to issue the worst in leveraging all the power to protect U.S. interests. The Biden administration must maintain delicate balance avoiding a one-on-one military confrontation with Russia, while punishing Russia for creating this harsh new reality. Right now, not task is more important.
Joining us now is the co-author of that op-ed, retired Army Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman, who is a former director for European Affairs at the National Security Council. He`s also the author of the "New York Times" best seller, called "Here, Right Matters: An American Story". He`s now a board member for the Renewed Democracy Initiative.
Colonel Vindman, thank you for joining me tonight.
A lot of people say the Biden threat of unprecedented new sanctions against Putin and his underlings won`t work as a deterrence. Sanctions aren`t good enough. You write in your latest piece for "Foreign Affairs" today that that`s not necessarily the case.
Briefly explain why.
ALEXANDER VINDMAN, RETIRED ARMY LIEUTENANT COLONEL: Well, actually, I don`t think the sanctions are necessarily going to be -- sanctions by themselves are not going top be a sufficient term. The fact of the matter is that they are reactionary. They`ll snap into effect potentially after Russia`s incursion. Even then, there is probably going to be a deliberation.
Right now, the diplomatic effort under way with our allies is to make sure we`re on the same page. If not, they don`t completely align, most of the sanctions will be consistent between the various -- alliance structure.
[21:50:08]
But by itself, that`s not financial to be sufficient. The Russians have built a massive $630 billion war chest to weather sanctions. It`s going to take some coercive diplomacy on the part of the U.S., some hard power, the posturing of U.S. forces in Europe to deter Russian aggression and with the provision of additional lethal aid. And even then, it`s probably too late to have a significant effect. I think we`re all but locked in on this confrontation --
HASAN: So in your "Foreign Affairs" piece, you also paint that pretty stark and scary picture of what a full-scale Russian ground and sea offensive in Ukraine might look like and might lead to. You say it could, quote, inflict tens of thousands of casualties and trigger a humanitarian catastrophe.
Given that scenario and given there is no U.S. military solution that prevents that scenario, why not stop it from happening by saying Ukraine won`t be joining NATO anytime soon, which let`s be honest, it won`t, and getting Putin to back off and avoid a full-blown war. Isn`t making that offer a price worth paying to avoid a, quote, humanitarian catastrophe?
VINDMAN: First of all, I think there`s a merit to discussing this idea, but I don`t think that even the fact that the U.S. says that Ukraine can`t join NATO is not going to be sufficient. It doesn`t change the dynamic on the ground between Russia and Ukraine. Ukraine continues to make progress on its path toward democracy, continues to make a path of progress on (INAUDIBLE), continues to pose a viable alternative to the Russian model. On that basis that`s why Vladimir Putin`s acting.
I think there`s something to be said about this idea of whether the U.S. could unilaterally make this decision and roll back the clock on really many, many decades of idea that countries could determine their own path. It`s this concept of self-determination. There have been numerous international agreements including the U.N. charter that indicates countries should be able to choose their own path.
Now, whether NATO joins is a different story, but I think that`s just a signal. If we say they can`t join, that`s just a signal that Putin has a free hand in Ukraine.
HASAN: Yeah, so you`re saying the sanctions won`t necessarily work. Offering no Ukraine membership of NATO won`t work. Joe Biden is saying there`s no way troops will get involved, not American troops.
Where does that leave us?
VINDMAN: That leaves us with very few options. I think the things that can work are notions this is not the opportunity that Vladimir Putin thought it was when he started to build up these forces. And those notions are closed off by really locking in this idea of very, very severe consequences.
There`s a bill in Congress right now by Senator Menendez that is wide ranging. It covers sanctions, it covers provisions of military aid. It even covers a concept of lend-lease where the Ukrainians could acquire much, much more capable, high end equipment. Those types of things legislated with bipartisan support can be helpful.
There could be more than done with regards to allowing the Ukrainian to defend themselves and arming them. Those will change -- start to on the margins change Russian calculus. There`s something to be done with regards to force posture in Europe.
We`re going to need that anyway. Once this occurs, there`s going to be a flood of refugees. Our allies are going to demand some security. And clear indications Article 5 actually holds. And all these things together may still have an effect.
(CROSSTALK)
HASAN: We`re out of time, but one thing I would like to see happen, god forbid, if people start fleeing Ukraine, is a lot of the Western countries that claim to care so much about Ukrainian lives, let`s see if our government and other countries will open their borders to Ukrainian refugees.
Retired Army Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, we`ll have to leave it there. We`re out of time. Thank you so much for your analysis. Appreciate it.
We have just one more story to get to tonight. And the sheer Republican hypocrisy may shock you or it may not. Either way you need to hear this.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:58:07]
HASAN: We talk a lot about how we are at unprecedented political times on this show. But some aspects of our current politics are as reliable and as shameless as ever. Here, for example, is a statement from Republican Iowa Congresswoman Ashley Hinson.
Quote, this landmark investment will be game changing for Iowans and communities along the Mississippi River. She`s talking about a $829 million federal investment from President Biden`s bipartisan infrastructure package that passed late last year, an investment that benefits her district. She goes on that`s why I helped lead a bipartisan group of my colleagues in urging the administration to prioritize funding for these essential up grades.
There is just one problem with this statement. Republican Congresswoman Ashley Hinson, you will be shocked to hear, voted against the bipartisan infrastructure package. In fact, she was loudly, proudly against it.
This is another one of her press releases a few days after that bill passed in November. It calls the bill the biggest leap towards socialism this nation has ever seen. Quote, it takes the Marxists ideology that once only existed in textbooks and makes it law in the United States.
So which one is it, Congresswoman? Is this bill Marxism come to life or a game changing investment for Iowans?
This week, Republican Congresswoman Cay Granger of Texas put out a statement praising a $403 million federal investment in her district made possible because of the bipartisan infrastructure bill. She calls it a great day for Fort Worth and says the investment will make Fort Worth safer and stronger.
And she also voted against the bill. In fact, on the day it passed, Granger put out a press release calling it a so-called infrastructure bill that was radical spending on a liberal wish list.
Now, these members of Congress aren`t the first or only examples of Republicans taking credit for stuff on the bipartisan infrastructure package they voted against.
Alabama Congressman Gary Palmer was in fact first. He took credit for the chunk of the bill that would benefit his home state the day Biden signed, it literally ten days after he had just voted against it.
And as we now start to see the project in the bill go from lines of texts to actual broken ground and construction, get ready to see a lot more of this hypocrisy. So the next time you see a Congress person taking credit for a big piece of infrastructure near you, especially if they`re a Republican, it might be wise to just double-check how they voted. I`m just saying.
That does it for us tonight. Rachel you`ll be delighted to hear will be back on Monday.
And I hope to see you Sunday night for my show, "THE MEHDI HASAN SHOW" at 8:00 p.m. Eastern here on MSNBC and weeknights at 7:00 p.m. on Peacock.
Now it`s time for "THE LAST WORD." Jonathan Capehart is in for Lawrence tonight.
Good evening, Jonathan.