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

Transcript: The Rachel Maddow Show, 10/28/21

Guests: Pramila Jayapal, Rebecca Roiphe

Summary

Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal, chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, is interviewed. Former Democratic New York governor, Andrew Cuomo, is now facing a criminal charge, in addition to being forced to resigned the governorship following a state investigation that concluded that he sexually harassed nearly a dozen women while he was governor.

Transcript

CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST: That is ALL IN on this Thursday night.

"THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW" starts right now.

Good evening, Rachel.

RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: But there will be major penalties for anybody who doesn`t listen, though, right? There will be like a tax thing --

HAYES: I`m hoping someone -- yes, I`m hoping someone stuck in the Build Back Better bill there is some tax penalty unless you`re -- and also, push the subscribe button, give me your likes, I want the four-star ratings, the whole thing.

MADDOW: And if you don`t, just wait. Just wait and see what happens to you. that`s exactly right.

Thank you, my friend. Thank you, big Chris. Big government.

All right. And thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. Happy to have you here.

All right, it used to be called ValuJet. It was founded in 1992. It pretty immediately developed a scary safety record. They were only founded in 1992, but by 1995, they had already had an aircraft evacuated on the runway, just before it burned down.

By the following, year 1996, it was a terrible fatal crash, May 1996. ValuJet flight had an on board midair fire. It was caused by hazardous flammable materials that were improperly stored on board. And that plane came down, all 110 people on board that plane died, the plane crashed into the Florida Everglades. Just a terrible disaster.

And again, that was 1996, ValuJet had only been around for four years when that happened, but that would be the end of ValuJet.

The company, still existed after that crash, but they decided what they would do is they would buy a little company, called Airtran. They decided that the real privilege, the real benefit of buying that little company, would be that ValuJet could take that little company`s name.

So, after the crash, the ValuJet name disappeared, and that`s how we got Airtran. Rebranding.

How about Blackwater? The private mercenary force run by the billionaire brother of Trump`s billionaire Education Secretary Betsy DeVos.

It was never all that clear why the U.S. government needed to hire Erik Prince`s band of private mercenaries, on top of the actual army, that our government sent into Iraq. But they did, they hired Blackwater. And after Blackwater guys massacred 17 random civilians, in a traffic circle in Baghdad, the Blackwater name started to etch a little bit.

First, the company changed the name Blackwater to something that was supposed to be unpronounceable. But it was spelled Xe, capital X small e. When people start pronouncing it as she, I think that itch the Blackwater boy is even more, in the old name, did.

So they changed it again, they went from Blackwater to Xe, to a misspelling of the word academy. They spelled it academi or academi. It`s still Blackwater but they don`t want you to call them that anymore.

When Wall Street melted down, the economy in 2000, and the federal government decided it needed to spend $17 billion, bailing out the financing arm of GM. It`s called GMAC, in that bail out worked, that entity came back after the financial crash. But they came back under a different name, probably wise, they change their name and now they`re called Ally Bank.

This is a tried and true and frankly tired tactic. Johnson & Johnson got on the hook for its talcum powder allegedly causing cancer. Well, Johnson & Johnson will no longer technically be the company that makes or ever made that talcum powder, they created a new company, to bear that burden. They called them LTL. Is that forgettable for enough for you for that? Name did you already forget? I did, LTL.

That is the deliberately forgettable company name, that sounds nothing at all like Johnson & Johnson, and Johnson & Johnson nevertheless created to be corporately responsible for all the talcum powder. That`s who you sue if it gives you cancer. They didn`t wanted to be associated with Johnson & Johnson anymore, so they formed a new company, they gave him a forgettable little name that consist solely of initials, and then they promptly declared that company bankrupt. Nice.

When Philip Morris decided that all of the anti-smoking moaning and groaning, and coughing was really cramping its public style, Philip Morris decided it would become, Altria, which is frankly still funny nearly 20 years later. That sounds way less smoky, Altria. You sound like a dust ruffle company now, or a meditation app -- except one that gives you lung cancer.

[21:05:05]

When President Biden picked a new chief, for the Federal Trade Commission, he picked a young, the youngest leader in the FTC`s history, a young, brilliant academic, who literally made her career challenging the outsized power and market share of gigantic tech companies like Amazon and the artist formerly known as Facebook.

The FTC has these big tech companies in their sights, under the Biden administration, the FTC has already asked a federal court, to break up Facebook. After a senior Facebook employee recently spirited thousands and thousands of documents out of the company, documents that appear to show the company`s internal research about the effects of its own products, that research was totally at odds with the company`s public statements about the same matters. Not to mention their statements to regulatory agencies.

After all that is happened, in the wake of all of that, in the wake of dozens of news organizations filing dozens of news stories this week, about those -- based on those internal Facebook files, portraying the company intensely unflattering light, today, we got word from the Wall Street Journal, that the FTC, which again has the power to break up Facebook, they are scrutinizing these new disclosures of internal documents as, well as well as their previous scrutiny of Facebook, for their market share.

The FTC is reportedly in touch with the Facebook whistleblower and her attorneys. This is an agency that has the power, and apparently the intention to break up Facebook.

We also learned in recent days, that the Securities Exchange Commission, is in touch with the Facebook whistle-blower as well, since some of what she`s disclosed about the company`s behavior arguably constitutes securities fraud, which is a crime, which is a kind of thing that can make your company go poof, even if you`re a big company.

So, with all of that happening right now in Facebook`s world -- yes, apparently it`s time, today, Facebook at its Airtran moment. Altria, I already knew (ph). We`re supposed to call Blackwater Xe now, or Academi or whatever after their massacre problem. We`re supposed to call Philip Morris Altria, after all the cancer.

And now as of today, we`re supposed to call Facebook, Meta. Okay. It will always be ValuJet to me.

And, this has been such a jam-packed news day that is only like 25 different things that could be the big above the fold all caps headline in any newspaper tonight or tomorrow morning.

Today, the Justice Department announced that they have settled a group of lawsuits, that were brought by the survivors, and by the families of the victims who were killed, at the Mother Emmanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina, back in 2015.

White supremacists fantasize the number 88. The letter H is the eighth letter of the alphabet. So, 88 to them stands for HH, which to them stands for Heil Hitler. They love that number 88.

It was an avowed white supremacist who said he was trying to start a race war in America, when he took a 45 caliber pistol, and walked into the Mother Emmanuel Church in Charleston. Folks there invited him into bible study, they prayed with, him and then he pulled out his gun and he started to shoot them.

He was wearing a shirt reportedly with the number 88 printed on it. He had reportedly brought 88 bullets with him into the church that day.

Well, today, the families of the people he killed, and the people who survived the massacre, today they learned that they will split $88 million, from the U.S. Justice Department, to settle their various lawsuits against the government for this massacre.

In the reason the U.S. government was sued in this case, in conjunction with this massacre, the reason the U.S. government was likely considerably formally liable for what happened in this massacre, is because the government did make a big mistake, a mistake they were wired to make.

When that white supremacist went to buy the gun that he used to kill those people in the church, the FBI background check system, should have flags, him should have blocked the sale of that gun to him, Republicans for decades now have made it a priority in Washington, to weaken and hamstring and sabotage the federal background check process for buying a gun, as much as they can in every way that they can.

They made sure there are whole categories of gun sales that are not subject FBI background checks at all. They have blocked the government from upgrading the technology that they used to do background checks. They have forced the government to throw out background check records, instead of keeping them on file.

In one of the things they did to make the background check process as weak as possible, is that they created a rule, a binding federal rule that says if the background check process is not complete after three days, the person just gets the gun.

[21:10:09]

It defaults to yes you can have the, gun if three days pass, before the FBI background check can be completed. And in the case of the 21-year-old white supremacist who killed all those parishioners, at Mother Emanuel, the FBI background check on him was not finished in three days, legally he should not have been able to buy the gun, because of a previous drug arrest. But it turns out, they had a wrong number, a wrong reference for the police department that did the arrest, they were waiting for calls back from people who were not the right people to be calling them back, three days went, by three days expired, thank you Republican amendments to the FBI background check process, he got his gun, and then he killed all those beautiful people, in that beautiful place.

Mother Emanuel`s pastor, was killed that day, he was a South Carolina Democratic state senator as well as a pastor. His name was Reverend Clementa Pinckney. His daughter today said when the Justice Department announced these settlements, she said quote, my sister and I are going to go home realizing that the government did not sit in silence, they paid attention, and they value my father`s life, and they value the lives of the eight other people who died.

These killings have been six years ago in 2015, in the part about the background check thing, the FBI screwing up the background check, or not being able to complete the background, check that is been known for a long time. The FBI knew almost immediately after the massacre happened, that the background check mistake was made, they apologize publicly for it just weeks after the killing. Given that, I don`t know why it took six years for the Justice Department to decide, that they no longer wanted to fight these lawsuits, and they wanted to make this settlement when the victims families. But they`ve made that decision as of today.

The victims` families and their survivors will split that 88 million dollar payment. I don`t know why it took six years. I have a feeling I has to do with there being new leadership in DOJ, which is having to spend time, not only confronting all of the new problems of the day, about writing past wrongs as well. And I say that because, we keep seeing things like this crop up, and nothing is exactly like that.

But this idea of trying to remedy past, wrongs trying to make up for lost time, with things the U.S. government did wrong, that the Justice Department in the administration can otherwise fix. It`s starting to become a theme and current news.

In a very different kind of case, you may recall a few weeks ago, the Justice Department also decided to settle a lawsuit, to pay a lot of money to settle a lawsuit, in this case it was a lawsuit brought by the former acting director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe, the number two official, deputy director of the FBI under James Comey. Former president Donald Trump fired James Comey because of the Russia investigation, and then he immediately set to work trying to get Andrew McCabe fired for the Russian investigation as well.

He demanded not only Trump demanded publicly, not only that DOJ needed to fire McCabe, but they needed to do so hours, literally hours, before he would otherwise qualify for his full pension, in recognition of his decades of service at the FBI. In it turns out the Justice Department appears to kind of broken all the rules, when they caved to Trump`s pressure on that, and did what he said, did we demanded.

The Justice Department at least concluded that they were going to lose the lawsuit, that Andrew McCabe brought against them, over his improper firing. Well, earlier this month, the Justice Department decided they would settle that lawsuit, with Andrew McCabe. They gave him back his badge. They gave him back his pension. They even paid his attorneys fees.

The Biden administration`s plenty on its plate. But it turns out it`s like one of those TV dinner style sub divided plates. Or like the kind of play it at the hospital. It turns out that there`s a whole kindest segmented portion about what`s allowed on their plate. A big portion of what they have to deal with in any one day is cleaning up with still stuck, there was still stuck there in wrong there from the previous administration.

And now tonight, Wall Street Journal was first to break this remarkable story, which NBC News has since confirmed, which is a very, very big deal. Here`s the lead in "The Wall Street Journal" tonight. Quote: The Biden administration is in talks to offer immigrant families that were separated during the Trump administration around $450,000 a person in compensation, as several agencies work to resolve lawsuits filed on behalf of parents and children who say the government subjected them to lasting psychological trauma.

The U.S. government forcibly taking little kids away from their moms and dads, and refusing to return them, that is something that none of us will ever be able to make right.

[21:15:02]

That happened in our lifetimes, in our -- in our time, in our lifetimes, when we were citizens of this country. It happened in our names. And we will never be able to fully fix that.

If you were ripped away from your parents, taken out of their arms as a little kid and forcibly kept apart from them indefinitely, how could that ever be made up to you? How could that ever be made up to your family?

None of us will ever be able to make it right. And it was done in our names. And it will be the first bullet point on along well organized list. When a number of decision-makers from the Trump administration`s dream that up, and they shake into the hot place where they`re going to spend internal domination, that`s going to be the first bullet point on the list that they used to check in for their eternal stay.

But legally, our government under President Biden has been in the position now for months of needing to field these lawsuits from the family, from the families that have the kid stolen away from the moms and dads, deliberately traumatized by the U.S. government on purpose as policy. If this reporting tonight from "The Wall Street Journal" and NBC News bears out, those lawsuits are going to be settled now. The U.S. government is not going to fight them, they are going to settle them, and they are going to pay compensation to the families that went through this.

The news breaking today why the administration says they`re still trying to reunite about 200 families that are still separated, while the kids have their parents taken away by the Trump administration. But in terms of this compensation discussion, it`s the Justice Department, Homeland Security, and Health and Human Services that are involved in these negotiations and we`ll continue to follow that closely.

I`m telling you this is one of those days. I woke up this morning and I was talking to Susan about how it`s been sort of -- sort of a flashback to the time during the Trump administration when the news feels very unpredictable on a daily -- on any individual day. I was talking to Susan about how, some days we have a lot of news, and some days you know what`s going to happen over the course of the days, but some days it kind of feels like the news just evaporates when you get close to it. The stories just evaporating go on to the next day.

And she was like, don`t tempt the news gods. That was this morning, and now today, the news is just. Even with all of that we`ve just been discussing we have made a dent in terms of the major news that`s breaking today.

Here`s another cleanup on aisle 45 -- it was literally one day before Trump left office. January 19th 2021. The day before Biden was sworn in as president, the last day Trump was president, January 19th of this year, when Republican U.S. Senator Richard Burr announced that the Justice Department had just told him he was not going to be criminally charged. Back in May of last year, May 2020, the FBI had gone in the search warrant and had seized Senator Richard Burr`s cellphone.

That was a huge deal. I mean, Richard Burr is not only a sitting senator, he was a chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time. He had to resign from that post the day after the FBI raided him. And we soon learned what the investigation was about.

A few months earlier, in February of last year, February 2020, while the COVID pandemic was just starting to emerge as a potentially serious threat to our country, while Richard Burr was serving us the intelligence committee in the United States Senate, he suddenly, personally, dumped his whole stock portfolio. He had a joint IRA account with his wife that had $1.7 million in it, and he dropped, he liquidated all but one stop in their entire IRA, the entire joint IRA, 1.6 million plus, sold it`ll.

Now, you also recall, there was a huge crash in the stock market in late February as the scope of the COVID crisis became clear to everybody in the country. Senator Burr avoided losing his $1.6 million IRA in that crash because he had liquidated that IRA just the week before it happened.

So, how did he know to do that? Senator Burr had been investigation for potentially using non-public information he had access to as a senator, as a basis for the massive stock sale. And he has denied it, he denied it all along. He said there`s nothing special about why he sold those talks at that time, there was nothing to see.

And again, the Trump Justice Department told him that the last day Trump was president, the last day of the Trump administration, that he would not be criminally charged.

But when it comes to the strike to that case, look at this -- this is today from ProPublica, quote, in February 2020, a week before the coronavirus market crash, Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina dumped more than $1.6 million in stocks. After he did so, he called his brother-in-law, that same day. According to a new Security and Exchange Commission filing, the two men talked for 50 seconds.

[21:20:01]

According to the SEC, Senator Burr had material, non public information regarding the incoming economic impact of coronavirus. The very next minute, after Senator Burr lace that call to his brother in law and they spoke for 50 seconds.

The very next minute, Burr`s brother-in-law called his own broker. Burr liquidated his stock portfolio, calls its brother-in-law. One minute later, his brother-in-law calls his broker too. ProPublica previously reported that Senator Burr`s brother in law had dump stocks the same day that Senator Burr. But it was previously unknown that the two men spoke that day. And that their contact came just before the brother-in-law begin the process of dumping stock himself.

In these filings, the SEC also reveals that there was an ongoing insider trading investigation into both Senator Burr and his brother-in-law. And it`s filing, the SEC alleges that Burr had material non-public information about the economic impact of the upcoming coronavirus crisis based on his role at the time as chairman of the intelligence committee, as a member of the health committee, and through his former staffers who were directing key aspects of the government response to the virus.

On the day Senator Burr called his brother-in-law, the brother sold between $97,000 and $280,000 worth of shares in six different companies, including several companies that were hit particularly hard in the market soon an economic downturn that would start within days.

The week after the trade, the market began its crash. In his roles in the intelligence and health committee, Burr did have access to the most governments high classified information about threats to America`s security in public health concerns. Before his sell-off, Burr assured the public that the federal government was well-prepared to handle the virus.

And in February 7th op-ed, he said, quote, the United States today is better prepared than ever before, to face a merging public health threats like the coronavirus. That`s what he was saying publicly. Meanwhile, he was selling all of his stalks, calling his brother-in-law and saying, who knows what he said. But 50 seconds after the call, or one minute after the call, the brother in law sold all his stocks too.

Senator Burr did resign from the intelligence committee chairmanship after the FBI raided him last year. He also announced that he wouldn`t run for reelection as a senator either. But part of his defense to this whole scandal was that it was a sheer coincidence that he and his brother-in-law sold off all their stocks at the same time. His lawyer told per ProPublica, that has been investigating us this whole time, his lawyer told ProPublica, quote, Senator Burr did not coordinate his decision to trade on February 13th with his brother in law.

Yeah, that`s what his lawyer has been saying publicly. He had no coordination -- why would even think these things are related? Except for the part where Burr sold all his stock, called the dude, and one minute later, that dude sold all his stocks too. Why would you think those things are related? But here`s the big question, honestly, why exactly did the Justice Department under Donald Trump conclude on Trump`s last day in office that Senator Richard Burr should definitely not be criminally charged for this?

We now know that Burr is under SEC investigation, but is the criminal charges possibility live again, given what the SEC is reporting its public facing filings? About what they found, about what he did? Stay tuned. Like I said this is kind of a nuts news day.

In New York state, former Democratic New York governor, Andrew Cuomo, is now facing a criminal charge, in addition to being forced to resigned the governorship following a state investigation that concluded that he sexually harassed nearly a dozen women while he was governor. Now, this is a misdemeanor complaint, he is accused of forcible touching. I say it`s a misdemeanor complaint but don`t think that means it`s a minor thing. This carries a potential sentence of a year in prison.

There`s been some confusion as to how exactly the charge was filed. "The Albany Times Union" which has covered this case white on rice from the very beginning. They reported that the charge may have been filed prematurely. That the county sheriff`s office had not actually intended to move forward with this charge until next week, but somebody at the city court in Albany jumped the gun. Don`t really know what that would mean.

It should also be noted that this is a charge that`s being brought by the shirts office, not by the local prosecutor. Both the county district attorney in Albany, and the attorney for the alleged victim in this case that they were absolutely blindsided by the charge being filed today. So, it is not entirely clear what happened here.

The former governor`s lawyer put out a fairly pugnacious statement tonight saying it was politically motivated and, quote, not professional law enforcement.

[21:25:01]

But keep in mind once the state investigation into Cuomo`s alleged behavior was made public, a whole bunch of county DA`s in New York expressed interest in potentially filing charges related to the conduct described in that report, whether or not this charge brought by the sheriff in Albany city court against a sort of strange circumstances of this charge tonight, whether or not this ends up being the biggest legal problem Governor Cuomo`s going to face here, that is far from settled. But we`ll have more on the unusual development in that case tonight, lots likely to happen here next, we`ll have that coming up in just a few minutes with some expert help.

But like I said, a bit of a bunkers news day. There`s a lot of competition for front page base.

President Biden just landed in Rome within the past hour. He`s going to be meeting with Pope Francis at the Vatican while he is in Rome for the G20 meeting. After the G20, he will be off to Scotland for the big international climate summit, we`ll have more on that ahead as well as tonight, including some of the new one interesting public pressure brought to bear on the issue of climate.

But as he left Washington today for this overseas trip, President Biden did try to pep talk`s party into finally signing off on what will be the signature legislation of his first term, if it can ever take flight. After the president speech this morning Democrats spent the day appearing to get closer and closer to the edge of the proverbial cliff deciding whether or not they would take the dive into the good-looking pool below.

The progressives met, the moderate summit, the progressives and the moderates met together. It was everything all at once.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. KYRSTEN SINEMA (D-AZ): It`s a great discussion.

REPORTER: Do you feel like she got a share instant be needed to say yes on the bipartisan infrastructure bill?

REPORTER: Are there any pieces of the framework -- ?

REPORTER: Do you think there`s going to be a vote on the bipartisan infrastructure bill in the House today?

SINEMA: Yes.

REPORTER: Are you going to make any public statement on where you stand on this framework?

SINEMA: Oh I (INAUDIBLE) this morning, yes.

REPORTER: But it is in progress they want to hear if you are going to vote for it. Are you going to clarify what your position -- ?

REP. PRAMILA JAYAPAL (D-WA): It was a great meeting and that`s all that I want to say.

REPORTER: Is there anything we can expect today in terms of votes?

JAYAPAL: Y know, I can`t speak to that but I don`t believe -- let`s just keep working, we`re working, we`re not going anywhere, we`re working on through the weekend, we`re going to get these two votes.

REPORTER: Are you staying in town?

JAYAPAL: I am sitting in town, yes.

REPORTER: Did you get any assurance from Senator Sinema?

JAYAPAL: I am not going to comment.

REPORTER: Has your position changed with regards to the voting of the bipartisan infrastructure bill?

JAYAPAL: It`s a really good conversation. That is literally all I`m going to say --

REPORTER: Are you ready to vote on the bipartisan infrastructure bill?

JAYAPAL: No.

(END VIDEO CDLIP)

MADDOW: Are you ready to vote on bipartisan infrastructure? No. Are you staying in town? We`re not going anywhere, we`re working on through the weekends, we`re going to get these two bills done.

Senator Sinema, your statement today your says you`re getting progress, people are going to air for getting to vote for this, are you going to clarify what your position is?

Senator Kyrsten Sinema and the chair of the congressional caucus, Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal met today in person, you heard them both saying that it was a great meeting. But what does that mean? They are all still right in the middle of it, there is a 1700-page bill out there that is floating out there that the president spoke in favor of today that we think everybody involved might conceivably sign on to. They are still right in the middle of it though. Apparently they are going to work through the weekend.

I would love an update as to whether or not this is going to happen, and where we are in that process. Congresswoman Jayapal is going to join us later. This is just a crazy day in the news.

Stay with us. More to come.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[21:32:57]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAYAPAL: We`re going to keep working here. We`ll get it done. The president said he believes he`s got 50 votes in the Senate, and, you know, I think it`s a lot for him to say that, and I think, of course, any of the statements that the -- that the senators make (ph) in support are always helpful, but we -- we are going to pass both the bills.

REPORTER: How long do you think it`s going to take?

JAYAPAL: I think we can get it done pretty quickly.

REPORTER: Do you think you can do it by this weekend?

JAYAPAL: I don`t know. Let`s see.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: The chair of the Progressive Caucus in the House, Pramila Jayapal, she had a busier day than any of us, and everywhere she goes these days, she has a pack of reporters chasing her down, like they did after she left the meeting with Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema late this afternoon.

As of today, we`ve got 1,700-page-long, $1.75 trillion bill which President Biden said there are 50 votes for in the Senate, at least when it comes to the framework of that bill. What is a framework really?

This is a framework. This is at least a bill that the House appears ready to vote for, too. Are we there yet? Are we close to there yet?

I think we`re not, but why is that when Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal says that we`re going to work through the weekend toward this, does that mean that working through the weekend will get us there?

Joining us again tonight is the indefatigable chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the optimist in chief of THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW, Washington Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal.

Congresswoman Jayapal, thank you. Thank you for making time to be here tonight. I really appreciate it.

JAYAPAL: It`s always great to see you. Optimist in chief is in residence.

MADDOW: Well, first of all, whatever you do in terms of your, like, diet and fitness routine that keeps your energy up for what you`re going through right now, I would like to get -- I would like to buy some stock in that. I would like to get in on that.

And I just like to know from you, basically, if -- if you are explaining to somebody right now who hasn`t been following this all along, who doesn`t been -- who hasn`t been super-engaged in the ins and outs, if they just want to know if there`s going to be something new coming from Washington to help people, would you tell them yes or would you tell them we still don`t know?

[21:35:04]

JAYAPAL: I would say absolutely yes.

Today was kind of an amazing day, I have to say that. You know, we got a framework from the president. The Progressive Caucus then endorsed that framework, which meant that our 96-member caucus agreed that that framework in principle was something that we could enthusiastically support. We were able to send the president off to Europe with that endorsement.

And then, Rachel, we got the text. We got the text which is what I said we needed, and guess what? When you put those demands forward, actually, you can make stuff happen. And so, we got the text for the bill. It is 1,400 pages. We`re going through it right now.

And our caucus, as you know, already agreed that we would vote on the infrastructure bill if we have the Build Back Better Act and the text of the Build Back Better Act, that the two bills would move together. And, Rachel, I feel like we are very close.

But the most important thing is this -- three weeks ago when I was on your show, we did not have a bill that had 50 senators. We -- the White House was engaged but not nearly as engaged as they have been. We did not have progressives and moderates and whoever else`s in the House ready to vote for the Build Back Better Act. There was all kinds of back-and-forths about it.

And in three weeks, by progressives holding the line and saying these two bills need to go together because we are not leaving anybody behind, we were able to get more negotiations that happened, than has happened in the last six months with these two senators.

And now, I think -- and I met with Senator Kyrsten Sinema today, it was a really good meeting, very productive. And I`ve been talking, as you know, to Joe Manchin.

And, Rachel, I really believe that we have shown people what it means to fight for them, to not leave people behind. And we will deliver very shortly, very shortly. We will deliver both of these (ph) -- the infrastructure bill and the remarkably transformational Build Back Better Act so that families across this country can get universal child care by paying no more than 7 percent of their income, universal pre-K, the biggest and best investment in housing since the New Deal, investment in elder care, home and community-based care, the biggest investment in climate ever that we have ever seen, and health care for people.

Not to mention, we will actually change the tax code so that finally we can bring a tiny bit of fairness -- not everything we wanted, but a tiny bit of fairness to the tax code so the wealthiest corporations and individuals start to pay more of their fair share.

So, I am feeling really good today. And, you know, it`s by nature to be optimistic, as you know, but I actually today, I see the end. And I don`t think I said that on your show before. I see the end.

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW: No, you said --

JAYAPAL: Of course, the House has to pass these and then the Senate has to pass it, and I am trusting the president when he says he has 50 votes in the Senate. Plus, I`ve spoken to Senator Sinema. I will circle back with Senator Manchin.

And, you know, look, we will -- there is a bit of a leap of faith here that we will take. But I believe that we are finally in a place where that can happen.

And I`m just so proud of the Progressive Caucus, I`m proud of the Progressive Movement. I think we showed the country what it means to fight for everybody and leave nobody behind.

MADDOW: I will say this. I saw a statement from the group individual.org saying: House Progressives have once again demonstrated what effective, collective power can do if we stay united in our fight -- saying that you holding your members unified about this is essentially what made this much progress possible.

Again, you say you can see the end is news. That will be news that you made here tonight. We`re going to keep asking you back until you say no, until we get to the end of this, Congresswoman Jayapal. Thank you for being with us tonight.

JAYAPAL: Thank you, Rachel.

MADDOW: All right. We`ll be right back. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[21:43:38]

MADDOW: So this document appeared out of the blue today, apparently no one was expecting it, and it was in the local criminal court in the city of Albany, the capital of New York State. It`s criminal complaint from the Albany criminal office. And you could see the title of the criminal complaint is this, the people of the state of New York versus Andrew M. Cuomo, as in former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo.

It says, quote: On December 7th, 2020, between the hours of 3:51 in the afternoon and 4:07 in the afternoon, while at the governor`s executive mansion on the second floor, the defendant Andrew M. Cuomo did knowingly and intentionally commit the class A misdemeanor of forcible touching. At the foresaid date and location, the defendant did intentionally and for no legitimate purpose forcibly places hand under the blouse of the victim and on to her intimate body part, specifically, the victim`s left breast, for the purposes of degrading and gratifying his sexual desires, all contrary to the provisions of the statute.

Governor Andrew Cuomo stepped down just over two months ago now, as governor in New York, after uninvestigated instigated by the New York Attorney General Letitia James found that Cuomo had sexually harassed at least 11 women while he was governor. The AG`s report corroborated on specific allegation that Cuomo had groped a staffer under her blouse at the governor`s mansion, it was one of the most serious allegations made against the governor. It`s the one he has denied most vociferously.

It also appears to be the basis of this charge filed in local criminal court in Albany today. I should say there`s been a little bit of confusion about how this charge was filed, it was filed by the sheriff`s office itself, not by a prosecutor. Both the Albany County district attorney, the locally based prosecutor in Albany County, and also the attorney for the alleged victim, the police said they were blindsided by this charge coming today which is unusual.

Former Governor Andrew Cuomo has jumped in that confusion tonight, his attorney issuing a statement denying about the substance of the allegation, and also attacking the Albany County sheriff for filing this charge without telling the local prosecutor, without telling the local DA.

The bottom line, the Albany criminal court has issued a summons for former Governor Andrew Cuomo to appear on November 17th to face a charge of forcible touching, that is a charge that carries a penalty of up to a year in prison. This is a serious thing.

What should we expect here about how this is going to go?

Joining us now is Rebecca Roiphe. She is a professor at New York law school and she is a former assistant district attorney at Manhattan.

Professor Roiphe, thank you so much for being here. I really appreciate your time.

REBECCA ROIPHE, FORMER ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY, MANHATTAN: Thank you.

MADDOW: So, first, let me ask you if I am right to point out what`s seems to be slightly something unusual about this complaint. This detail that it was filed by the sheriff`s office and not by the local prosecutor, not by the Albany County DA. The Albany County DA doesn`t seem to have known this was coming toward the victims lawyer appear to have been notified that the charges coming.

Is it worth pointing those things out a somewhat unusual in terms of the process?

ROIPHE: It is definitely worth pointing that out. It is very strange that in a case like this, you wouldn`t have coordination between the sheriff`s office and the district attorney`s office. This is a high profile case. It is not something that just sort of fell into the lap of the sheriff`s office.

It is very strange that there seems to be this lack of communication and lack of coordination between those two offices. What that means, is a little bit hard to tell, it could mean that the DA`s office isn`t fully behind this and will be reluctant to bring formal charges later on. Or it could be just some kind of logistical glitch that is happening.

And it`s a little bit hard to know at this point. But we have to keep our eye out for whether or not those formal charges are coming because that would be the sign of the DA`s falling behind in charges.

MADDOW: And when we expect that to happen at the time that he has been told to appear in court. What sort of timeframe would expect in terms of sorting out whether this was some sort of glitch, some sort of procedural hiccup, but not something substantive? At what point of the process would we see that unfold?

ROIPHE: Certainly that we would know that has happened by the time the former governor is expected in court, which I believe is November 17th. So before that, we would expect to see the formal charges brought, the day would have to appear in court, they would have to arrange a plea deal. These are all things have to do a prosecution, where you need prosecutor`s office to actually be behind it.

MADDOW: In terms of the seriousness of this charge, it`s described in the complaint as a class A misdemeanor, a forcible touching. We know that technically the potential penalty here is a year in prison, which means it`s serious thing, but can you give us some sort of context in terms of how serious this is under New York law?

And if he were convicted of this offense, what would be the likely sentence, not just the possible sentence?

ROIPHE: You know, any criminal charge is a serious thing, and as you say he is facing time in jail and that makes it even more serious. But in a case like this, with a defendant who hasn`t committed crimes in the past, you probably wouldn`t expect that he would see jail time at all, prison time at all. It`s impossible to predict any kind of assurance but he very well might end up with probation in a case like this, where he hasn`t had any criminal history in this regard.

MADDOW: In terms of, again, the process here, not to get too much in the weeds here, but if this is going to go forward, I was also struck by the district attorney in Albany said that their office did not know that this was coming. And that doesn`t seem to have been that communication that you are describing that would be normal in the normal course.

But also the attorney for the victim here. When a charge like this is brought, when effectively a sex crime, this type of charge, is there some sort of requirement, or at least an expectation that the victim, the alleged victims, would be notified that they have advance word that something like this is going to happen since obviously victims in these kind of cases can be very much affected by the public trying of these charges?

ROIPHE: Yes, I mean, I think the expectation is very much that you would have coordination and communication, none of which the things have occurred, in these particular circumstance, so what that means is another question.

[21:50:04]

It seems like there`s something off between the relationship, between the sheriff`s office, and the DA`s office, and that may have also caused the other effect that the victims put herself in her lawyer were taken off guard by these charges.

So, again, it`s really a little bit hard to read these tea leaves, but it does seem like something strange is going on, and it could be some kind of lack of communication that would clearly be no in terms of timing. Or it could be something more serious, like the DA`s office is not fully behind these charges.

And so, it remains to be seen which of those two there are. But one of those tea leaves is exactly as you say, you would normally expect the victim to have been contacted, and she wasn`t.

MADDOW: Professor Rebecca Roiphe, former assistant district attorney in the state of New York, thank you for helping us understand this, I have a feeling we`re going to be talking to again about this as the case moves forward. Thank you.

ROIPHE: Thank you so much.

MADDOW: All right. We`ll be right back. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[21:55:07]

MADDOW: In this job, over the years, I have watched a lot of political ads, some good, some bad, the vast majority of them excruciatingly mediocre and predictable. But I have to say, I did not expect an ad this good from this organization, on this topic. I was almost tempted to call this the best new thing in the world today. It`s so good. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, POLITICAL AD/UNITED NATIONS)

CHARACTER: Listen up people, you`re headed for a climate disaster, and yet every year government spends hundreds of billions of public funds on fossil fuel subsidies. Imagine if we had spent hundreds of billions a year`s subsidizing giant meteors. That`s what you`re doing right now.

Around the world people are living in poverty, don`t you think helping them would make more sense than I don`t know, paying for the demise of your entire species?

You got a huge opportunity right now, as you rebuild your economies, and bounce back from this pandemic, so here is my wild idea. Don`t choose extinction, savior species, before it`s too late. It`s time for humans to stop making excuses. And start making changes. Thank you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW: Don`t choose extinction. That ad from the UN, ahead of the big international climate conference next week.

With all due respect to the world`s most important international deliberative body, I didn`t expect to put out an ad that good, or that bold, the giant meteor lobby is going to feel very competitive about this.

We`ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MADDOW: It`s Friday Eve, which doesn`t mean it`s Friday evening now, it means it is the eve of Friday. Tomorrow will be Friday. It`s Friday eve. There is no greater news I could give you.

It`s going to do it for us now. I`ll see you again tomorrow, which is Friday.

Now, it`s time for "THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL".

Good evening, Lawrence.