Summary:
Senator Amy Klobuchar, chair of the Rules Committee in the U.S.
Senate is interviewed. Senator Gary Peters of Michigan, chairman of the
Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee is interviewed.
Transcript:
CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST: We can do it. Hang in there. Loyce Pace, thank
you so much for making time. Come on back.
That is ALL IN for this evening.
"THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW" starts right now.
Good evening, Rachel.
RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, Chris. Thank you, my friend. Much
appreciated.
Thanks to you at home for joining this hour.
A lot to get to this hour after what has been a really busy day in
Washington. Lots of movement on President Biden`s cabinet nominees today,
on the COVID relief effort. One of those days where it seems like you`re
trying to watch a dozen different story lines at once.
But the event of the day, at the U.S. Capitol, which is still under
lockdown, surrounded by thousands of National Guard troops in the wake of
the January 6th attack on the Capitol, today was the first investigation.
Today was the first congressional hearing into what happened that day. What
went wrong at the Capitol on January 6th that allowed the pro-Trump violent
mob to storm the Capitol building, interrupt the certification of the
election, and come within just steps of the lawmakers who are in the
building that day, whose blood the mob was crowing for.
Today, two Senate committees took testimony from the officials in charge of
the Capitol security that day. I should tell you, we`re going to speak to
the chairs of both of those committees this hour. The witnesses at today`s
hearing were the acting chief of the D.C. Metropolitan Police who took over
that job just four days before the January 6th attack. As well as three
officials who resigned in the immediate aftermath of the attack. The former
head of the Capitol police, the former Senate sergeant at arms, the former
House sergeant at arms.
But it was interesting and it was sort of a surprise the way it unfolded.
Before senators started questioning those announced witnesses, the chair of
the Rules Committee, Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota who is going to
join us in just a moment, she announced what was in fact a surprise guest.
Senator Klobuchar said the committees thought it was important to hear from
someone who was on the front lines, on the violent front lines defending
the Capitol on January 6th. She introduced Captain Carneysha Mendoza, a
member of the U.S. Capitol Police for 19 years. Prior to that, she was an
active duty soldier in the U.S. Army.
Captain Mendoza gave a riveting and terrifying account of her day at work
on January 6th.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CAPT. CARNEYSHA MENDOZA, U.S. CAPITOL POLICE: It was approximately 1:30 in
the afternoon. I was home eating with my 10-year-old, spending time with
him before what I knew would be a long day. A fellow captain contacted me
and said things were bad and I needed to respond. I literally dropped
everything to respond to work that day, early.
I arrived within 15 minutes and I contacted dispatch to ask her what active
scenes we had. I was advised things were pretty bad. I asked where
assistance was needed and was advised of six active scenes. There was an
explosive device at the Democratic National Committee building, a second
explosive device at the Republican National Committee building. And large
hostile groups at different locations outside the Capitol building.
I made my way through the crowd by yelling and pushing people out of my way
until I saw Capitol police civil disturbance units in riot gear in the
hallway. They were holding the hallway to keep rioters from penetrating
deeper into the building. I immediately jumped in line with them to assist
withholding the crowd of rioters. At some point my right arm got wedged
between rioters and the railing along the wall. A sergeant pulled my right
arm free. Had he not, I`m certain it would have been broken.
Shortly after that, an officer was pushed and fell to the floor. I assisted
the officer to a safer location and got back in line. At some point, the
crowd breached the line officers worked so hard to maintain. Civil
disturbance units began to redeploy to keep rioters from accessing
different areas of the building. I proceeded to the rotunda where I noticed
a heavy smoke-like residue and smelled what I believed to be military grade
CS gas, a familiar smell. It was mixed with fire extinguisher smell by
rioters.
The rioters continued to deploy CS into the rotunda. Officers received a
lot of gas exposure which is worse inside the building than outside because
there`s no where for it to go. I received chemical burns to my face that
have not healed to this day.
I witnessed officers being knocked to the ground and hit with various
objects thrown by rioters. I was unable to determine exactly what those
objects were. I immediately assumed command in the rotunda and called for
additional assets.
Officers began to push the crowd out the door. After a couple hours,
officers cleared the rotunda but had to physically hold the door closed
because it had been broken by the rioters. Officers begged me for relief as
they were unsure how long they could physically hold the door closed with
the crowd continually banging on the outside of the door attempting to gain
reentry.
Eventually, officers were able to secure the door with furniture and other
objects. The night of January 7th into the very early morning hours of my
birthday, January 8th, I spent at the hospital comforting the family of our
fallen officer and met with the medical examiner`s office prior to working
fellow officers to facilitate a motorcade to transport Officer Sicknick
from the hospital.
Of the multitude of events I`ve worked in my nearly 19 years in the
department, this was by far the worst of the worst.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MADDOW: This was by far the worst of the worst. U.S. Capitol police
captain, speaking today again, as I mentioned, this was an unannounced
guest. A surprise witness at today`s hearing. Captain Carneysha Mendoza, as
she said there, a 19-year veteran of the U.S. Capitol Police.
But that is how today`s hearing kicked off, searing testimony from that
senior Capitol Police officer on the scene on January 6, talking about
spending time with the family of an officer killed in the attack, talking
about her officers coming to her as a commander on the scene as they tried
to hold broken doors shut to keep the crowd at bay.
That testimony formed the set, the back drop for today`s hearing. Remember
how bad this thing was, worst of the worst. And then with that
understanding fresh in our minds, let us try to get to the bottom of how it
happened.
Here`s one theory of what happened that day. You might think the attack on
the Capitol was carried out by supporters of former President Trump. You
might think that because they carried giant flags that said Trump and
because they chanted things like "fight for Trump" as they stormed the
Capitol after a rally in which they were incited to do so by President
Trump.
You might think that white supremacists and other extremist groups because
members of those groups have been arrested and charged in the ensuing weeks
since the attack, and also because all the witnesses at today`s hearing,
one after another, all, uniformly confirmed that white supremacist and
extremist groups were among those that attacked the Capitol.
But Republican Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin had a wildly different take
today. Senator Johnson used his few minutes of question time today to muse
aloud and read a right wing blog post into the Senate record about how the
whole Capitol attack on January 6th was actually carried out by anti-Trump
protesters.
You see, all the people who committed all the violence that day, they were
faking being Trump supporters when they really weren`t. It was secretly
anti-Trump people who dressed up as pro Trump people. Like an elaborate
holiday pageant.
Yes. Everything was all very festive, as Senator Johnson described it,
until these anti-Trump provocateurs in costume started to riot.
This is not like a guy heckling the hearing today. Ron Johnson was actually
the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, when Republicans run the
Senate. They made him chairman of Homeland Security. Well, gee, gosh, I
don`t know, have you considered that maybe this whole thing was a clever
costumed stunt by President Trump`s opponents? Have you considered that? I
read a blog about it once on the tweeter.
The Democrats now are on the Senate. Amy Klobuchar runs the Rules
Committee. She was one of those running the hearing today. She said this
later after the close of the hearing, pointedly. She said, quote: As our
hearing concludes, I want to make one thing clear: provocateurs did not
storm the Capitol. They were not fake Trump protesters. The mood on January
6th was not festive. That is disinformation.
Disinformation that was spread by Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin at this
hearing.
And while Senator Johnson used his time on spread that disinformation, his
successor, his Democratic successor, who is the new chair of Homeland
Security, Michigan Senator Gary Peters, will also join us tonight. He spent
his day today trying to run, you can, an actual hearing with questions and
useful information that advances our understanding of what happened on the
6th.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. GARY PETERS (D-MI): What did you see that leads you to believe that
this was a coordinated attack?
STEVEN SUND, FORMER U.S. CAPITOL POLICE CHIEF: One, these people came
specifically with equipment you bring climbing gear to a demonstration, you
bring explosives, you bring chemicals such as what Captain Mendoza talked
about. You`re coming prepared.
The fact the group that attacked our west front 20 minutes, approximately
20 minutes before the event at the ellipse ended which means they were
planning on our agency not being at full strength, you know, watching the
other events say, hey, that event is ending. OK, everybody get on post.
They`re going to be marching our way, knowing we may not be at full
strength at that time.
And then also the fact that we were dealing with two pipe bombs that were
specifically set right off the edge of our perimeter to what I suspect draw
resources away. I think there was a significant coordination with this
attack.
PETERS: Clearly here, we got a coordinated attack. All of you saw this
immediately. I can imagine the conversations with the National Guard.
And, Chief, you were stunned by the tepid response. Can you clarify that
and tell us how the conversations went?
ROBERT CONTEE, METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPOT. ACTING CHIEF: There was a phone
call that was convening between several officials. Chief Sund was on the
call, literally pleading. There were several army officials on the call. I
don`t know them all by name.
Several officials from district government were on the seasonable. Chief
Sund was pleading for the deployment of the National Guard. In response to
that, there was not an immediate yes of the National Guard is responding,
yes, the National Guard is on the way, yes, the National Guard are being
restaged from traffic posts to respond.
The response was more asking about the plan, what was the plan for the
National Guard. The response was more focused on, in addition to the plan,
the optics, about how this looks with boots on the ground on the Capitol.
And my response to that was simply, I was just stunned. I have officers out
there literally fighting for their lives. We`re kind of going through what
seems like an exercise to check the boxes and it was not an immediate
response.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MADDOW: One of the things still unclear, all these weeks after the Capitol
attack, why there was this apparently lack of urgency at the Pentagon that
day. Why the Pentagon seemed to not get what they were being asked to do
and why. Why didn`t they immediately respond when they got these urgent
calls about the need for the National Guard to come supplant the defense of
the Capitol while the attack was underway, while the violence was in fact
heading toward its apex.
I mean, this is a call taking place at the 2:00 hour as the Capitol is
being overrun. They`re being begged to send in the National Guard. The
response as the chief just said, was not an immediate yes. Yes, the
National Guard is responding. Yes, the National Guard is on the way.
I mean, one thing that did not come up in today`s hearing but has still not
been explained about that desperate phone call the D.C. police described,
that the Pentagon initially lied about one of the military officers who was
on that call. The "Washington Post" reporting last month that after Trump`s
disgraced national security adviser Mike Flynn told President Trump he
should use military force and martial law to seize power despite the
election results, Mike Flynn`s brother was at the Pentagon and on that
call, the call where the Pentagon allegedly slow walked approving deploying
the National Guard.
Mike Flynn`s brother, Lieutenant General Charles Flynn, has denied that his
relationship with his brother was any sort of factor in the response to the
Capitol attack. But the army hand explained why they repeatedly lied when
they insisted multiple times that General Flynn`s brother had nothing to do
with it. That he was not on the call when in fact he was.
So to have one of the central figures in the president`s election
conspiracy, and the QAnon conspiracy, one of the central figures promoting
the disaster that was January 6th, to have his brother involved in the
inexplicable Pentagon decision on January 6th to not send the National
Guard to help the overrun Capitol police, that seems like something we
should learn more about. We need to learn a lot more about the Pentagon`s
lack of a response when they were being begged to respond in real-time.
At the end of today`s hearing, Senator Klobuchar, chair of the rules
committee, summed up a number of things we should be learning. How changes
are approved when they need resources, better intelligence sharing between
agencies, some security changes are needed at the Capitol building, the use
of the National Guard needs to be examined, how approval is made once
troops are requested.
She summed up what happened today at this hearing, it was very helpful
after this dense long hearing, especially because it is the first one that
looks at what happened January 6th. But then as soon as the hearing was
over, Senator Klobuchar announced there will be another hearing next week,
a second one. And that one is going to include Pentagon officials to get to
the bottom of among other things, what happened. When the call came in for
the National Guard and the answer was basically, no, it was de facto no for
hours.
So today`s hearing was finally something and it was something. It was also
just the beginning.
Joining us now is Senator Amy Klobuchar, who is the chair of the Rules
Committee in the United States Senate. One of the two committees that
oversaw today`s hearing.
Senator Klobuchar, I know it`s been a really long day. Thanks for being
here tonight.
SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR (D-MN): -- thanks for including Captain Mendoza`s
testimony at the beginning. That was so important.
MADDOW: I can`t hear her.
KLOBUCHAR: Okay. Hold on.
MADDOW: Now I`m lost in space and nobody can hear me at all. All right.
This is one of those moments when I`m going to call an audible. We are
going to ask Senator Klobuchar to stand by. These are our technical
difficulties, I believe. Not hers.
We`re going to take a quick break. We`ll be right back with Senator Amy
Klobuchar, also Senator Peters, the two senators who chaired this hearing
today on the attack on January 6th.
We`ll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MADDOW: I believe that we have tracked down, tackled and tickled to death
our technical gremlins and that will mean I may be able to hear Senator Amy
Klobuchar, the chair of the Senate Rules Committee when we bring her on. If
not, I`m out of here. Forget it.
Senator Klobuchar, thank you so much for your patience. I really appreciate
it.
KLOBUCHAR: No problem at all. Very good.
I was just saying earlier, I was so glad --
MADDOW: Yeah.
KLOBUCHAR: -- Captain Mendoza`s testimony, which is so important to the
story, all the front line officers.
But, you know, your point is what I really wanted to stress was that we
need solutions here. You can just throw popcorn at the screen all you want
at these hearings, but if we don`t get solutions out of it, we really
haven`t accomplished anything.
And despite Ron Johnson`s craziness and despite his literally refusal to
believe what everyone knows, that there was an armed insurrection at the
Capitol, most of the senators treated the witnesses with respect. They
asked their questions.
And Gary Peters, who I know you`re going to hear from today and I both
decided we want this to be a bipartisan constructive hearing and it was.
MADDOW: Senator, one of the things that I found, not baffling but sort of
increasingly frustrating, was the ongoing discussions and in some cases,
contentious discussions, about who had what intelligence in advance of
January 6th, and to what degree there were specific warning that`s this
could potentially be a violent event.
I know there is a lot to sort out but I thought you bottom lined it very
well by saying, listen, whatever exactly happened here between different
agencies, and between different intelligence silos here and things falling
in between groups and people not finding out what they`re supposed to find
out, the bottom line here is that this is not a system set up to anticipate
and handle a crisis. And I do feel like we`re splitting hairs here in terms
of how violent everybody knew things were going to be.
Looking at public source intelligence, I think a lot of people paying any
amount of attention thought there would be any chance of violence. Are not
we getting too bogged down into who got what report when?
KLOBUCHAR: -- questions from senators and I think we want to get the facts
so we can improve the process.
The two main things, January 3rd, they had an internal report with the
Capitol police that they should have listened to that reported thousands of
people were descending on Washington. And then the big one was January 5th,
the night before, FBI emails from the Norfolk office, they e-mailed a
report about that there`s evidence that there are people showing up who
want to go to war, who want to invade the Capitol.
And we just find out today that the chief only found out about it in the
last few days, that the sergeant at arms had not seen it. But you can`t
just press send at night. They also on their end had to have a way to see
these reports so that`s concerning.
Here are the things we talked about. One, better process on the
intelligence, obviously. But two, as you point out, why did the National
Guard take so long, will be our number one question at the Department of
Defense at our hearing next week.
The third thing is that this police chief reports to what is called a
Capitol Police Board which is three people, two of whom are the sergeant at
arms. So I want you to picture, they`re there guarding their member, trying
to get them on secure locations. The police chief calls them because of the
process in place to see if he can call in the National Guard. I think
anyone that heard that, Republican, Democrat, anyone watching knows we have
to change that process.
So there are some concrete things we can do in addition to figuring out how
we use the National Guard going forward. They were at the Capitol for years
after 9/11 in a smart way, how we change the security while still
preserving the public nature of the Capitol.
When we are through this pandemic, Rachel, we want student groups to come
and we want veterans groups and people to visit the Capitol so we cannot
lose the public nature of the Capitol. But it`s not going to be business as
usual when it comes to the security.
MADDOW: I know that decision making process at the Pentagon, the call with
request for help from the National Guard, and the muddled and slow response
to that, as you mentioned, is going to be the subject of the next hearing
that you are going to convene on this right away next week. And I`m really
glad to hear that.
I have to ask, in terms of the investigation that you all have done thus
far, what you`ve learned, including at today`s hearing, is there any
indication, is there any reason to worry that there may have been
essentially influence on the Pentagon side in terms of slowing down the
response? In terms of not allowing National Guard troops to come in and
back stop the police who are getting so overrun?
Was there any effort to try to let this riot run its course in a way that
is going to be not just a tragedy but a scandal?
KLOBUCHAR: I don`t know the answer to that question. I hope that would not
be true. We do know, I think it was Mitch McConnell who called President
Trump`s actions that day disgraceful and a dereliction of duty.
We know that he wasn`t making those calls to bring the National Guard in.
It was Vice President Pence, that it was the leaders of Congress on both
sides of the aisle. And so, we have no idea what actually went into that
delay.
One thing I would add is if you want to get the National Guard deployed,
some of this should have also occurred the night before, the day before
that, and that also was messed up on many sides.
So there are so many things that we can do and we all saw the horror as
pointed out by Jamie Raskin and the House managers. That was a big part of
the historical record, that impeachment hearing. But now, it`s on us to
improve the security at the Capitol, and to figure out exactly what went
wrong.
And I was actually pleased that we got these witnesses, three of whom, as
you pointed out, Rachel, have resigned from their positions in the wake of
what happened to come voluntarily and answer questions in a respectful
manner. I don`t think anyone thought we would pull it off but we believe
that the public needed to know what happened, and the only way this is
helpful for people is if we go forward with solutions. And that`s the next
step.
MADDOW: On that -- on that chain of command question, the decision making
question there, do you anticipate that you`ll ask Vice President Pence or
his staff to come in and testify about their role at any point?
KLOBUCHAR: Right now, we`re focused on the FBI, Homeland Security and the
Defense Department, because they have not come in and testified about this
yet. This was the first hearing in the Senate after the impeachment trial.
So that`s what we`re focused on.
I think part of what, and I spent that evening with Vice President Pence
because as Senator Blunt pointed out at the hearing today, at 4:00 in the
morning, it was just Vice President Pence and Senator Blunt and myself
walking with those two young women with the mahogany box, with the ballots,
over to the House where Speaker Pelosi was waiting so we could finish our
jobs. And I`ve talked to him about this directly but haven`t asked him
that.
I think we have to look at these in a lot of different tracks. Our job
right now is to look at the domestic terrorism and figure out solutions.
The Judiciary Committee will be going at it in a big way and Christopher
Wray will be testifying next week before the Judiciary Committee.
And then finally, major investigations going on in the Justice Department.
Already, people charged and I think you heard Merrick Garland speak
hurtfully about how important this is to him and all of this by the way is
going on while we must do our other work. Get the people confirmed and
also, for Joe Biden`s cabinet, and also, see that light at the end of the
tunnel getting through this pandemic.
And we have a very solemn ceremony today for the 500,000 Americans that
have lost their lives. I`m so proud this new administration, it was just
announced, up 70 percent from when Joe Biden came in with the number of the
vaccines that they`ve sent out to the states.
There is a lot going on here as you point out every night. But we still
have to make sure that this temple of democracy is safe.
MADDOW: Senator Amy Klobuchar, the chair of the Rules Committee in the
Senate that convened this first hearing today on the events of 1/6 at the
Capitol. Thank you for your forbearance with our gremlins there. I really
appreciate it.
KLOBUCHAR: Thank you.
MADDOW: All right. We got much more ahead. As I mentioned, the head of the
Homeland Security Committee, Gary Peters, will be joining us. Peters will
be joining us.ity se Peters will be joining us. Peters will also be joining
us.
Lot`s more still to come. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MADDOW; The reason that Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz is opposed to
President Biden`s health secretary nominee, he says, is that that nominee
Xavier Becerra is not a doctor. If you`re going to be health secretary, you
must be a doctor, says Ted Cruz. So Senator Cruz is against Xavier Becerra
because Becerra is not a doctor.
Nevertheless, Senator Ted Cruz voted for the last health secretary under
president Trump who was a man named Alex Azar. Senator Cruz voted for Alex
Azar to be health secretary, even though you`ll be shocked to learn, Alex
Azar is also not a doctor.
See, it`s unacceptable to nominate a non-doctor to be health secretary
unless that nominee is from a Republican president in which case I have to
go.
Republican Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina has also expressed
objection to Xavier Becerra being nominated as health secretary. Senator
Burr`s objection is that Xavier Becerra served on coming for a long time on
committee that`s had important oversight roles in health care issues,
involved in a lot of health care policy that way. But Senator Burr said
that`s not appropriate experience for someone joining the cabinet to work
on health issues.
That`s his stance against Xavier Becerra being health secretary. Yes, he
worked on health stuff a ton in Congress but that`s not the kind of
experience you need for being health secretary in the cabinet. Despite
stance now, under President Trump, Senator Richard Burr expressed great
enthusiasm for a Trump cabinet nominee named Dan Coats. Dan Coats was
nominated to be director of intelligence.
Why did Dr. Burr like Dan Coats for that job so much, even though Dan Coats
had never held any national security or intelligence job ever before
getting that nomination?
Well, Senator Burr explained it at the time. He said Dan Coats would be an
excellent choice for director of national intelligence. He said his
experience as a valued member of Senate Intelligence Committee will help to
guide him as the next director of national intelligence. He said I think
his time on the committee has served him to understand what that role
entails.
So to be clear, just serving in Congress, being on committees that work
something, that`s not enough to make you qualified to serve in the cabinet
only issue unless you`re nominated by a Republican president and then it`s
okay. If you`re nominated by a Democratic president on the same basis, then
you are deeply unqualified and you must be withdrawn.
President Biden`s nominee for agriculture secretary, Tom Vilsack, was
approved 92-7 today. The president`s nominee for U.N. ambassador, veteran
diplomat Linda Thomas-Greenfield was confirmed as well, 78-21.
But Republicans are rummaging in their hats for any rabbits they can find
to try to slow down or stop all the other Biden cabinet nominees that they
have targeted.
Xavier Becerra batted down objections from Republican senators at his
confirmation today. Got objections that Republicans are raising against
minimum they have no problem with at all from President Trump`s nominees in
similar circumstances.
Today, President Biden`s nominee for interior secretary, Deb Haaland, had
her confirmation hearing as well, and the knock on her for Republican
senators is that Deb Haaland has expressed concerns about oil and gas
drilling on public lands. Hmm, well, I can see why that would be very
difficult for them to swallow.
Do you know who else expressed concerns about oil and gas drilling on
public lands? Joe Biden, who was elected president after publicly and
repeatedly expressing those concerns, after making campaign promises about
how he would govern as president, saying he would vector those publicly
stated concerns of his into effect when he made policy as president. He was
elected president saying I`m a little worried about oil and gas drilling on
public lands and I`m going to do something about it.
So yes, he has chosen somebody to be interior secretary who agrees with him
only. It would be weird if he didn`t. It would be a scandal if he didn`t.
He wouldn`t campaign on protecting public lands from oil and gas drilling
and then put someone in charge of that part of the government and say gung
ho, let`s drill the bejesus out of some sacred national monuments. I can
get this done. I won`t tell Biden.
Right. Who did you think he was going to nominate?
But these shocking revelations about Deb Haaland that she holds the same
policy positions that literally anyone nominated by President Biden to this
position would have to hold to get the nomination, that means Republican
senators will not only vote no against Deb Haaland. They spent today
telling her how terrible she is and they want Biden to withdraw the
nomination because it is so outrageous that she agrees with him on basic
policy matters that he campaigned on.
Good luck with that. Deb Haaland will be confirmed. She will be the first
native-American ever confirmed to a U.S. cabinet position and it will be
celebrated by native communities coast to coast like nothing you`ve ever
seen. Almost all Republicans will have nevertheless opposed her on the
grounds that she, heaven forbid, agrees with the president on a major
policy issue.
When almost all, if not all Republican senators oppose her, native
communities in their states will never forget that vote ever. Deb Haaland
will be confirmed by the Senate regardless of Republicans` bad faith
objections to her. And Xavier Becerra will be confirmed by the Senate,
again, too, regardless of Republican senators` bad faith objections to him.
If you didn`t care that Alex Azar was not a doctor, you can`t explain
that`s your big explain with this other guy who isn`t a doctor either.
That`s how you teach a first grade better what bad faith means. Deb Haaland
and Xavier Becerra will be confirmed, just like Tom Vilsack and Linda
Thomas-Greenfield were confirmed today. Just like Merrick Garland will be
confirmed as our next attorney general despite all the Republican senators
standing up and intoning solemnly about how much they`re horrified by any
hint of the White House trying to influence the workings of department
prosecutors.
You can actually read these Republican senators` "lock her up, lock her up"
tattoos through their shirt sleeves. While they are making these pious
arguments as if this is something they have strong principled feelings
about after they never once peeped about president Trump burning the
Justice Department down in terms of interference. Lock her up, lock her up.
Anyone who is arguing to you that Democrats need to scooch over to the
Republican senators on confirmations, withdraw any confirmation that`s
Republicans don`t like, anybody who is telling that you Democrats need to
scooch over to the positions of Republican senators on policy and start
doing things that they say they want instead of what President Biden and
the Democrats campaigned on and what they can do and want to do, because
scooching over to the Republican side will build good faith with
Republicans. It will build goodwill.
If only the Democrats unilaterally give stuff to the Republicans they don`t
need to give up, the Republican there`s appreciate about that. It`s a good
faith sign. It will break open a new era of substantive bipartisan
cooperation.
Anyone arguing that to you in this century, in 2021, is not watching what
the Republicans are actually doing in the Senate, or the absolutely bold
bad faith with which they are behaving toward Biden nominees.
But beyond Republicans trying to pull the same bad faith stuff over and
over again, the other person playing that same bad faith game within the
Democratic Party is West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin who is very
concerned, he says about, civility, about temperament, of all nominees and
he won`t vote for any of them if they don`t meet his exacting standards
about civility and temperament and comportment.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRETT KAVANAUGH, SUPREME COURT JUSTICE: I worked my tail off.
SEN. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE (D-RI): And did the word you used --
KAVANAUGH: I already answered the question.
WHITEHOUSE: You like alcohol. You answer that.
KAVANAUGH: I like beer. I like beer.
WHITEHOUSE: OK.
KAVANAUGH: I don`t know if you like beer, Senator or not? What do you like
to drink? Senator, what do you like to drink?
WHITEHOUSE: Next one is -- judge, have you --
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MADDOW: Joe Manchin voted for Brett Kavanaugh`s confirmation to the
Supreme Court. Senator Manchin voted for Trump Ambassador nominee Ric
Grenell who had a rap sheet a mile long of insulting women online for their
looks, women in politics, insulting politicians` family members, ripping
mostly Democrats and some people in the media, mostly women, in nasty
sexist terms over and over again for years. He was like a professional
Twitter troll.
Joe Manchin voted to confirm Ric Rendell. Joe Manchin voted to confirm men
with records like hat. And even behavior in the witness assistant like
that. But he has decided this year with a president of his own party, with
a Democratic president in power, he has a new standard now. Now he says the
Biden nominee, Neera Tanden, her history of having said things like, oh,
calling Mitch McConnell Voldemort or calling Ted Cruz heartless, he has
decided that what is violates this new line he`s just drawn for civility
and comportment, a line that he did not apply or even reference when
considering dudes nominated by Trump over and over and over again.
But here for Neera Tanden, nominated to run the Office of Management and
Budget, well, this young lady got to watch her mouth. A new standard for
her.
We are watching two things in Washington right now where there`s
legitimately totally open question as to the outcome. One is about the
minimum wage. The parliamentarian of the Senate is set to decide if the
rules in the Senate are going to allow the Democrats to cast a rise in the
minimum wage with just 50 votes or will it need to be 60, in which case it
won`t happen because ten Republicans won`t support it.
We are waiting on that legitimate question. We`re also waiting to see what
will happen to the Neera Tanden nomination to run the Office of Management
and Budget. The double standard she`s being judged by one Democratic
senator, by Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia is something that so far
he`s mounted no defense to at all, which is getting to be astonishing,
given the stark know of the double standard that he`s applying to her
compared to the Trump nominees that he was happy to approve without any
reference to the things he`s saying are a bright line for him with this
nominee.
But it`s interesting. In previous Democratic nominations, we might have
seen them caving over issues like this. In this case, they`re not.
President Biden`s nominee is standing by Neera Tanden, not withdrawing her
nomination, saying she is their nominee and they intend to see her through.
Senator Schumer, the Democratic leader in the Senate, also standing by her
in the Senate, saying that she is the nomine and they intend to see her
through. It`s just Joe Manchin. Just him presumably, hopefully, thinking
hard about his own ethical standards, and why this particular nominee felt
so over the line for him when he`s been very happy to vote for multiple
Trump guys who are so far over the line. It didn`t even register as a line
at that time.
I think that Senator Joe Manchin not only knows his power but I think he is
an introspective guy who thinks about his ethical role in the world and I
find it hard to believe that he is not reconsidering his position on this
given the stark double standard he`s applying without any effort to defend
it. The White House is not withdrawing her name and why should they?
Senator Manchin hasn`t even tried to explain himself yet.
I don`t know where this one ends but Neera Tanden will get voted out of
committee tomorrow. So, questions being called.
Watch this space.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MADDOW: One of the repeated lines today from the Senate hearing on the
Capitol attack was that the deadly events of January 6th were the results
of an intelligence failure. Officials testified that while they were made
aware of threats of violent leading up to January 6th, they didn`t expect
they weren`t prepared for this level of violence.
Former chief of the Capitol police testified based on the intelligence they
received his team, quote, planned for an increased level of violence and
that some participants may be armed, but none of the intelligence we
received actually predicted what actually occurred.
Here`s the thing, though, if officials made aware of potential armed
protesters, why were they not prepared for an armed insurrection? I mean,
they were expecting, what, a little bit of violence, a manageable amount of
armed attack on the Capitol, a containable riot? I mean, now that we`re
getting into the investigation that we saw today with this hearing on
Capitol Hill into what happened on January 6th, it does still feel like
there was this elephant in this room.
Honestly, there was plenty of intelligence. I remember reporting on it
before January 6th. Plenty of open source intelligence that a mob of Trump
supporters primed for and capable of violence was going to be in D.C.
during the electoral vote count. The president called them specifically for
that date for that reason. He told them it was going to be wild. That was
his word "wild."
The under-armed, undermanned, underprepared security response to that is
not because nobody knew they were coming. It is because of the still
unexplained underestimation of the seriousness of the potential for
violence from this kind of crowd specifically. Why is that?
Joining us now is Senator Gary Peters of Michigan, chairman of the Homeland
Security and Government Affairs Committee, one of the two committees that
convened at the Capitol attack.
Chairman Peters, thank you so much for making time tonight, Senator. I
really appreciate you being here.
REP. GARY PETERS (D-MI): Great to be with you, Rachel, as always.
MADDOW: So one of the questions that was raised indeed on January 6th and
especially in the immediate aftermath was the question of whether the
potential for violence here was underestimated because the expected
protesters were largely white and conservative and were seen as allied with
the Republican Party and a Republican cause.
Are we any closer to discerning whether or not that perception of the crowd
was key to the underestimation of their potential for violence that day?
PETERS: Well, I`ll tell you, Rachel, it is hard to understand how they
could possibly underestimate the potential for violence with this rally. It
was clear, as you mentioned, which is absolutely clear, on social media it
was all over the place.
In fact, we had reports of this crowd that was going to descend on the
Capitol to "Stop the Steal", when we know how the "Stop the Steal" was code
word for getting folks incredibly angry and agitated that their democracy
was being taken from them. We have President Trump constantly talking about
it. You mentioned his tweets calling people to come on January 6th.
So it was certainly all over social media. It was pretty clear for anyone.
In fact, I remember friends coming to me and saying, Gary, how do you feel
going to Washington? Are you concerned about what`s happening?
These were not intelligence experts. These were men and women, friends of
mine, folks on the street. It was very clear that something bad could
potentially happen.
But then you also had intelligence reports, as we brought up today. On
January 3rd, a report from Capitol Police that talked about, in fact, what
is public is the fact that it was going to be different from some of the
activities that occurred earlier where there was violence against groups,
between groups, that this one was -- the target was Congress. It was
Congress itself that was going to be the target of violent activity.
And if you remember, the Capitol police, your job is to protect Congress
and it was -- it was out there. So, it is very difficult to understand why
the kinds of -- or the procedures were not put in place to make sure there
was adequate protection, making sure the police had riot gear, to make sure
they were able to protect the Capitol close up, to make sure the National
Guard was able to respond and be ready to respond at a moment`s notice,
which we know didn`t happen.
MADDOW: Well, now that these hearings from started, you and Senator
Klobuchar convening this hearing today. We have heard there is going to be
another hearing soon with Pentagon officials. I am very interested in that
question on what happened at the Pentagon when that call came in asking the
National Guard`s help, and they got hemmed and hawed for hours before any
National Guard troops were on the ground, backstopping those police
officers who so desperately needed the help.
What is your biggest remaining black box? What`s the -- what`s the biggest
open question for you that you feel needs to be answered most urgently that
could be answered by the kind of inquiry that you and your committee are
pursuing?
PETERS: Well, this next hearing is taking a broader look. Certainly what
happened on January 6th and the question that we certainly need to have
answered is why did it take so long for the National Guard to respond?
As you recall today in the hearing, I actually asked the chief of police,
the Metro D.C. Police, he was on that call and he said he was shocked by
the tepid -- it was his word -- tepid response from the Department of the
Army when they were calling -- actually pleading for help to have the
National Guard. He said the response coming back from the army official is,
well, what are your plans? When it should be, we will be there. We`ll get
there. Let`s talk about all of that, but we`re going to send folks to you
right away.
That didn`t happen. It shocked the chief of police of the Metro D.C. police
force that that was the response that they were getting. We`re going to ask
those questions. We`re going to have someone from the Department of Defense
at our hearing next week.
But we`re also going to need to look at the broader issue, something I have
been focused on over the last couple of years and plan to focus intently on
now as the chair of the Homeland Security Committee. This is the rise of
domestic terrorism, of white supremacists, of anti-government groups. We
saw it firsthand in Michigan unfortunately with a group that was plotting
to kidnap our governor and perhaps kill her.
We`ve seen folks descend our Capitol and the state of Michigan heavily
armed. This is a very concerning development. It is getting worse. We have
to treat it with the seriousness that it deserves.
We know that we need to get more intelligence on what these groups are up
to and make sure that we disrupt any type of plots they may have to attack
government buildings and officials, innocent folks, whatever it may be, we
need to be better prepared to deal with domestic terrorism, and that will
be a big part of what we talk about next week. And, certainly, we saw
evidence of that on the Capitol grounds where groups came.
In fact, we heard in testimony today that there were folks that were
engaged in military-type operations on that ground, trying to create even
more chaos and perhaps capturing members of Congress to kidnap them.
This is serious business. We have to treat it seriously. It was not treated
seriously by the previous administration. In fact, you could argue it was
encouraged.
That`s got to stop. We`re going to take those steps to unfold.
MADDOW: Senator Gary Peters of Michigan, chair of the Homeland Security
Committee, with a mission statement there that is frankly good to hear,
sir. Thank you very much. Godspeed to you. Thanks.
PETERS: Thank you.
MADDOW: All right. We`ll be right back. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MADDOW: That`s going to do it for us tonight. We`re expecting another busy
news day tomorrow. We will find out if Democrats are going to be able to
move an advance, a rise in the minimum wage through a process that means
they will only need 50 votes in the Senate, which might mean it would pass
as opposed to needing Republicans to side with them.
We`re also expecting to see the man who Donald Trump put in charge of the
Post Office for the purpose of breaking it. We`re going to see him tomorrow
before a House Oversight Committee. That should be lots of fireworks. That
starts tomorrow morning.
It`s going to be a busy day tomorrow. We`ll see you again tomorrow night.
Now, it`s time for "THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL."
Good evening, Lawrence.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY
BE UPDATED.
END
Copyright 2021 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials herein are
protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced,
distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the
prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter
or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the
content.>