Summary
Supreme Court Justice Breyer to retire; White House says Biden stands by his commitment to name a black woman to the Supreme Court; Biden to seat a new Supreme Court justice.
Transcript
ARI MELBER, MSNBC HOST: Rhodes accused of orchestrating an attack on the federal government. He will have to mount his defense, as so many defendants doing in our system while incarcerated.
That does it for me. THE REIDOUT with Joy Reid is up next. Hi, Joy?
JOY REID, MSNBC HOST: How are you doing, Ari? Really enjoyed your reminiscences of Justice Breyer. I think that's fascinating, very interesting career. And the death penalty thing is something I care a lot about too, so thank you for doing that in highlighting it tonight.
MELBER: Thank you, Joy.
REID: Cheers. Have a good evening.
All right good evening everyone. We begin THE REIDOUT tonight with a major opportunity for President Joe Biden to make a very powerful Washington institution a little bit more about America. The question of what kind of country we want to be, is increasingly decided not by elective representative of our multiracial democracy but by appointed members of the Supreme Court.
The biggest issues like reproductive right, and voting rights, protections for immigrants in the environment. And as we found out just this week the future of affirmative action. And now President Biden will make his mark on the high court with the unexpected news that Associate Justice Stephen Breyer plans to retire at the end of his term.
It's unexpected in the sense that Justice Breyer has refuses to telegraph his intentions, and it means President Biden a rare opening on the nine justice court, not for an ideological switch, if not going to change the fundamental make up of the now six to three right wing court. But it does given the opportunity to fill that seat for decades to come and to make good on a major campaign promise.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE BIDEN, U.S. PRESIDENT: I'm looking forward to making sure there's a black woman on the Supreme Court to make sure and in fact get a representation. Not a joke, not a joke.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said the president stands by that pledge but offered no specifics ahead of a formal announcement from Justice Breyer.
But a host of names have already emerge as possible nominees. Among them, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, appointed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals by President Biden last year to replaced Merrick Garland. She was confirmed with the support of all 50 Democratic senators and three Republicans, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Lindsey Graham. Justice Leondra Kruger, an Associate Justice of California Supreme Court, Judge J. Michelle Childs, of the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Judge Leslie Abrams Gardner of U.S. District Court for Georgia and Sherrilyn Ifil President of the -- President and Lead Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.
After the rampant Republican abstraction of President Obama's judicial nominees, let to be Harry Reid changing the filibuster rules. We should be prepared for a major political fight. Minority Leader Addison Mitchell McConnell III told Hugh Hewitt last year that he probably blocks any nominee if Republican were gain Senate control and a seat on the court opens up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HUGH HEWITT, RADIO HOST: If you were back as the Senate Republican leader, and I hope you are, and a Democrat retires at the end of 2023, and there are 18 months, that would be the Anthony Kennedy precedent. Would they get a fair shot at a hearing, not a radical, but a normal mainstream liberal?
SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): Well, we would have to wait and see what happens.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: Not would Mitch wouldn't say anything today pending a formal announcement from Justice Breyer. But the usual suspects in his army of ghouls are gearing up for a fight. And Lindsey Graham put out an almost shockingly factual statement noting a if Democrats hang together, which I suspect they will, they have the power to replace Justice Breyer in 2022 without one Republican vote in support, adding elections have consequences, happens to be true.
There was also insurrectionist fist pumping Missouri Senator Josh Hawley, he put out statement too, albeit the stupid one, saying, expect a major battle and Biden should nominate someone who loves America. In other words, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer does have his work cut out for him. He says President Biden's nominee will get a hearing with deliberate speed.
Justice Breyer, who was nominated by President Clinton in 1994 and has served for decades as a stalwart of the liberal wing, authoring rulings on abortion and the death penalty among others, has yet to make it official. He's argued that justices should be loyal to the law and not to political parties.
Democrats are aiming to confirm any Biden Supreme Court nominee who ever it may be on a similar timeframe as when Republicans rush to Justice Amy Coney Barrett's nomination just weeks before the 2020 election. She was confirmed in just 27 days.
Joining me now, Elie Mystal, Justice Correspondent for The Nation, Michael Beschloss, NBC News Presidential Historian and Host of Fireside History, pne of MSNBC's The Choice on Peacock, and Irin Carmon, Senior Correspondent for New York Magazine and Co-Author of the great book, Notorious RBG, the life and times of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
I have missed you Irin Carmon. I haven't seen you in many, many.
IRIN CARMON, NEW ORK MAGAZINE SENIOR CORRESPONDENT: It's great to see you, Joy, I miss you too.
[19:05:00]
REID: It is so great to see you. So Iƒ_Tm going to start with you. You having been a great biographer of the notorious RBG, I wonder what you make of this opening and what Biden might do with it.
CARMON: Well, I think it's clear the Breyer, among many other things look to the tragic example of Ruth Bader Ginsburg because of her decision not to retiring during the Obama administration, and we can talk about what her reason were but she did not choose to do so while the Democrats control the Senate before 2014.
As you just mentioned, Amy Coney Barrett was rushed through against her stated whishes. Breyer not only can see that his dear friends and fellow justice experience that kind of undoing of her legacy. And the denial of her dying wish. He can also see that he can read a poll just like anyone else. He served on the Senate judiciary committee as lead council. He's a pragmatic political animal.
He realizes that the clock is ticking and certainly there were many progressive advocates willing to remind him that the clock was ticking, and he had an opportunity to, while it may not shape the ideological balance of the court as you mention, he has the opportunity to make sure that he's leaving the court room not create greater damage. Because we know a 5-4 court is bad for progressive, we know a 6-3 court could do even more and a 7-2 court, no progressive wants to imagine.
REID: And, you know, Michael, if you could just sort of to zoomed us out here and talk about the historical context because, right, this isn't a change in the ideological makeup of the court, but it is a long-term change should President Biden nominate someone really young that could serve on the court for 40 years or so, whatever, 30, 40 years.
So what does it mean, big picture, for Biden to have this chance, and what would it mean -- and what would it say about the Republicans if they try to fight it, anyway, or if some Democrats joined them and tried to block it?
MICHAEL BESCHLOSS, NBC NEWS PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: Well, I agree with you, Joy. The statement that was made by the senator from Missouri about appointing someone who loves the country, that was stupid and it was almost slanderous. The president is going to do this, even a president you may not agree with, shows how far our country has come.
But, you know, these are have been milestones on the court and in American society. You know, it took until 1967, as you all know, for there to be a black person on the Supreme Court. LBJ chose Thurgood Marshall and he actually created an artificial vacancy to do it, appointed Ramsey Clark as attorney general which meant that Clark's father was a justice on the Supreme Court, had to get off and create a place for Thurgood, good for him.
Reagan in 1981, Reagan didn't do everything right by a very long shot but he did appoint the first woman to the Supreme Court. Why should it take two centuries (ph). So, here, we have a case where Joe Biden has committed himself to putting the first African-American woman on the Supreme Court. It should have happened a long, long time ago. The court has to look like it.
REID: Yes. Indeed and Elie, you know, I think we know what Josh Hawley meant when he said who loves America. Because any -- let's put the list. Any of these nominees who are black woman are going to automatically be called the human embodiment of critical race theory and they're going to be gone after on issues that are very directly related to race. The argument against them will be highly racialized by Republicans, because by love of America, they mean the uncritical of America's history when it comes to race and specifically when it comes to black people. That's how I read it. And I wonder what you make of this opportunity that Biden has and what he might do with it and if you have any tea leaves of who he might choose from this incredible list of judges.
ELIE MYSTAL, THE NATION JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: I mean, look, first, let's dispense with the qualifications argument. All of the women that are being banded (ph) about right now are immaculately qualified, especially when you talk about, you know, or in particularly when we talk about Ketanji Brown Jackson, who is maybe the leader in the clubhouse right now. We're talking about a woman with a Harvard college degree, a Harvard law degree, who has served as the head of U.S. Sentencing Commission, who has been a long-term judge, who is sitting on the D.C. Circuit right now. You don't get more qualified than a Brown Jackson or Leondra Kruger, or Justice Child. You don't get more qualified. And, quite frankly, of the 115 people who have served on the Supreme Court, 108 of them have been white guy.
So maybe it's actually the other side that's just been looking for the best available white man around, whereas when we look at -- when we look at the more diverse complexity of the country, we can find truly the most qualified candidate for the job. So, we should have no issue about their qualifications to say nothing of their moral qualification, because I'm pretty sure, and in fact, that I'm pretty sure that Joe Biden will not nominate somebody who has been credibly accused of trying to rape somebody when they were in high school.
[19:10:00]
I am pretty sure, I don't know this for a fact, that Joe Biden will not nominate somebody; who was been accused of perjury in front of Congress over a previous confirmation hearing.
So, there are professional qualifications but there's also moral qualifications, that's far as I can see, everyone of those black woman that would be listed has.
REID: And you know, Irin, to that point, I mean, I feel like in some ways Republican nominations have either been sort of a bait and switch on black folks as when Clarence Thomas was nominated to replace the great Thurgood Marshall, and so what they're saying here, we're going to give you a black person, but it's somebody whose agenda on the court, it's going to be into ethical to everything Thurgood Marshall stood for, which is also is one of the reason to makes me happy to see Sherrilyn Ifil's name on that list because, of course, she sits in that same role at the NAACP Legal Defense Education Fund.
But, I mean, there was sort of -- or like punitive or the highly stringently ideological irregardless or regardless of their moral qualifications, you think of a Kavanaugh and same thing with Clarence Thomas of things they were accused of.
And the fact that, that court decides whether woman have control over our bodies, with two men on it like that, is scandalous for a democracy. So what kind of moral sort of -- I don't know, what kind of moral case ought Biden make when it comes to his nominees? Because they are going to get attack, these are black woman if he does nominate a black woman.
CARMON: Absolutely. And I would say, just to add to the playbook that Elie was laying out, you're already seeing Republican legal elites attack, for example, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, who was the front runner, was a former Breyer Clerk, using the same playbook that you saw, used against Justice Sonia Sotomayor. And one of those is saying like attacking her intelligence despite the sterling credentials that Elie laid out. Again, very racialized, very misogynistic overtones, I would say, to these kind of attacks.
I would say that after the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett, who they openly said, we should nominate her because she's a woman, Ramesh Ponnuru, for example, wrote an op-ed saying we should nominate her because she's a woman and it will look better when we overrule Roe v. Wade.
Amy Coney Barrett had a very thin resume. She only spent three years as a judge. Ketanji Brown Jackson, for example, has spent eight years in the district court, she's now serving on the D.C. Circuit. So, it would be very rich but, of course, it would not be surprising if they had the chutzpah to attack the credentials of a qualified black woman after the Amy Coney Barrett situation.
And then, substantively, I mean, this next justice may not be seated in time for the gutting of Roe v. Wade but we know it is black women and women of color generally who are disproportionately affected by these restrictions and who suffered disproportionately from the high maternal mortality rate in this country. And so, unfortunately, even if the court guts Roe v. Wade, it may not even be the end of the story.
And we know for sure that the court has affirmative action in the crosshairs even if it is dissent to have a black woman in the room speaking up to the Brett Kavanaughs and the Neil Gorsuchs of the world, will be incredibly resonant, even if it will be a really unfun job.
REID: I think that is so true, you know, and, Michael, but that's the big picture, right, is that these decisions are being made about the lives of black and brown people, the lives of Muslims, whether they can travel to this country, the lives of students, whether they can go to school, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, by people who have no relationship to them in their lives, who don't understand them as anything other than, you know, you kind of look like my driver, maybe. You know what I mean, like they don't understand these communities. You know how important is it just from the big picture to at least have black women who are the biggest supporters of Democrats in terms of the vote that has turned out in the room to look across that lectern, as people like Kavanaugh and Thomas, et cetera, are taking our rights away?
BESCHLOSS: It's usually important. Because they have -- you know, everyone is a stakeholder, and last time I noticed, black women in this country were hugely important, contributing stakeholders who were at the moment not represented in the Supreme Court.
And, you know, the other thing is all these candidates that you mentioned this evening, Joy, every single one of them not only has wonderful backgrounds, as Elie mentioned, not only smart people, not only believes that meshed with the president of the United States, but these are all people who are persuasive. And since we're talking about Stephen Breyer tonight, one reason -- at least I honor, and I think I speak for all of us, Stephen Breyer, not only his views and not only most of his rulings, but this is a very smart, persuasive man who has actually gotten people on the other side and people who may have been wavering to agree with him on certain issues that a less persuasive person might not have done.
Final point, Joy, you and I, I think, established that one of our least favorite presidents is Woodrow Wilson.
[19:15:04]
And Woodrow Wilson appointed in 1914 -- I think you see where I'm going -- a guy named James McReynolds, who served on the court for almost 30 years, a vicious anti-Semite. There were two Jewish justices when he was there, Cardoso and Brandeis. He shunned them during all that period, wouldn't even be in a picture with them. This is the ugliest.
REID: This is going to be very interesting. And I -- we await to see what happens with the two usual suspects on the Democratic side, whether they will stand by this nominee, whoever she might be. We shall see. And as Elie would say, maybe he should just like add four more people on their, expand the court. That might be a good way to do things, change the way this things work.
Elie Mystal, Michael Beschloss, Irin Carmon.
Up next on THE REIDOUT, the DOJ is looking into the fraudulent slates of Republican electors and it's a BFD, as Joe Biden would say.
Also how to explain Putin's conduct in Ukraine? I have a theory. Something is missing in his life, something very orange and very compliant.
Plus the guy Ron DeSantis picked to lead Florida's COVID response, such as it is, probably thought that this was a got your question at his confirmation hearing today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do the vaccines work against preventing COVID-19? Yes or no.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes or no questions sir, are not that easy to find in science.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: And it didn't get any better from there.
And tonight's absolute worst, as one high school student so eloquently put it, will never be remembered in history as the good guys.
THE REIDOUT continues after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:20:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LISA MONACO, U.S. DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL: In terms of fraudulent elector certifications, as has been reported, we have received those referrals. Our prosecutors re looking at those.
And I can't say anything more on ongoing investigations.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: That was Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco dropping the bombshell news yesterday that the Justice Department has opened an investigation into the fake election certificates submitted by pro-Trump Republicans in seven states.
In five of those states, the Republicans not only forged official documents. They impersonated real electors, in an effort to falsify the results and award Donald Trump the presidency.
And, as we now know, they did all of this at the behest of the Trump campaign, which, ironically, means the whole scheme could represent a conspiracy to commit election fraud. That said, these fake electors are also subject to the laws of their respective states and should still be held accountable there without delay.
To that point, the office of Michigan's attorney general told "The Washington Post" they're already cooperating with the feds as they pursue parallel efforts.
And THE REIDOUT is first to report tonight that the nonpartisan pro- democracy group Law Forward is now demanding similar action from Wisconsin's attorney general.
They point out a total of eight state felony statutes that Wisconsin's 10 fake Trump electors have already -- have allegedly violated. Meanwhile, there's also a constitutional remedy to hold lawmakers accountable for supporting the insurrection of January 6. The 14th Amendment explicitly bars lawmakers from holding office if they have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the country.
It was originally designed to prevent further -- to prevent former Confederates from reclaiming their seats in Congress after the Civil War. But it's now being put to good use in the state of North Carolina, where a group of voters are challenging the eligibility of Congressman Madison Cawthorn to run for reelection.
Cawthorn, of course, was a prominent cheerleader for the insurrection both before and after it took place. One of the lawyers pressing the case told "The New York Times": "It should not be difficult to prove you are not an insurrectionist. It only seems to be difficult for Madison Cawthorn."
If successful, the challenge could have big implications for other lawmakers who also cheered on the insurrection, people like Mo Brooks, Paul Gosar, Andy Biggs and Margie Q. Greene.
With me now, former Republican strategist Steve Schmidt and Michelle Goldberg, "New York Times" columnist.
Thank you all for being here.
Let's talk about this. Thank you both for being here.
And I will start with you, Steve, since you were formerly a Republican strategist.
Madison Cawthorn, before and after January 6, I'm just going to put some of what he said: "Call your congressman. You can lightly threaten them. The future of the republic hinges on the actions of a solitary few. It's time to fight." That's January 4.
August 29, 2021, he referred to insurrection defendants as political prisoners, spoke of going to bust them out. That same day, he also added: "If our election systems continue to be rigged, it's going to lead to one place, and that's bloodshed."
His lawyer is now using -- citing the Confederate Amnesty Act to defend him. His lawyer talks about the 1872 Amnesty Act, which removed all persons whatsoever from the disability under Section 3 as a result in engaging in insurrection.
He's using the Confederate defense. Your thoughts?
STEVE SCHMIDT, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, his statements speak for themselves, Joy.
He is engaged in what will in the end be a wide-ranging conspiracy to overthrow the legitimately and democratically elected government of the United States. That's what this is all about.
Now, with Madison Cawthorn, putting aside for a moment that he is a political extremist and has proven that many times over and over, this is a character like "The Talented Mr. Ripley." Everything about this person, and I mean everything, the details of his accident, his supposed admission and denial into Annapolis, every assertion of fact that he has ever made about himself and who he is false.
[19:25:00]
He is like an impostor character from a movie. And he is a member of Congress in his mid-20s who is constantly inciting violence on one social media platform or another. So this lawsuit is meritorious. It's appropriate. And he is just one of a number of members of Congress that, by the time this is all over, will be clearly implicated in this conspiracy, not by the things that we don't already know, but powerfully by their own words over this last year.
REID: Yes.
SCHMIDT: So, look, he is what he appears to be, a young fascist who detests American democracy, a political extremist who yearns and thirst for political violence to break out. He is appalling and dangerous.
REID: Yes. No, I mean, I think that's really clear.
And I think the thing, Michelle, is that none of what's been done in terms of this insurrection was done in secret. It was all done quite openly. I mean, these fake electors were just sending into the National Archives, saying, we want the vice president to use these certificates that are forged.
All of it was done quite brazenly and quite openly, as if they either didn't understand what insurrection is and what a coup is while they were doing one. I mean, there were memos circulating from the White House to Congress, passed around.
It feels like the Republican Party as a whole just embraced the idea that, yes, we're going to overthrow the government in quite a casual way.
Let me play Boris Epshteyn. He used to be a sometime -- appearance on MSNBC, he used to be -- come on here and do some political talk -- just openly admitting to Ari Melber that he was involved.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BORIS EPSHTEYN, FORMER TRUMP 2020 CAMPAIGN STRATEGIC ADVISER: Yes, I was part of the process to make sure there were alternate electors for when, as we hoped, the challenges to the seated electors would be heard and would be successful, per the 12th Amendment of the Constitution and the Electoral Count Act.
Everything that was done was done illegally (sic) by the Trump legal team by -- according to the rules, and under the leadership of Rudy Giuliani. We fought for the truth.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: He said illegally, but I think he thought he meant legally.
Peter Navarro was also on that same day, saying, yes, we did it.
Your thoughts, Michelle?
MICHELLE GOLDBERG, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Well, that's always been the trick of Trump and people around him, right, is that -- is to do it in plain sight, because, if you -- if the conspiracy is in plain sight, then it looks less like a conspiracy, right?
It kind of is discombobulating. Are they actually doing this? And something else that you see over and over again with the people around Trump is that the line between kind of fascism and farce is often hard to parse.
So just because it seems ridiculous, these fake electors, these fake -- that you can just go to the coffee shop and make a certificate and send it into the National Archives, just because it's laughable doesn't mean that there wasn't also a real thought.
And I think that when you have an authoritarian government, you can put forward the laughable, the farcical with a straight face and kind of demand that people accept the absurd. And that's what you see from Trump and the people around him over and over again.
But, again, I think the shadiness of is, the amateurness of so much of it can in some ways obscure the seriousness of it.
REID: Yes. No, I totally agree.
And, Steve, I think that's the challenge, right, is that they make a mockery of what a congressman or a senator is supposed to be like. But they still hold the power that a congressman or a senator has. They still hold that power. And so they're dangerous even if they're stupid.
SCHMIDT: Of course they are.
GOLDBERG: Exactly.
SCHMIDT: They hold real power.
Some of them, in the case of Trump and his appointees across the depth and breadth of the federal government during the pandemic response, held the power of life and death.
REID: Right.
SCHMIDT: There was a meeting in White House where Jared Kushner quite deliberately decided that there would be no federal response in the early days, so that this could be stuck on to the plates of the blue state governors, the feeling being that they would suffer politically, and that Trump would somehow be immunized from it.
So it was, on one hand, profoundly stupid politically, but, more importantly, an act of evil, an immoral act that consigned a lot of Americans to death. So, when you take people who are immoral, who are undemocratic, who have contempt for people who look differently from them, who worship God differently from them, who have that autocratic impulse, and you give them power, there are consequences.
And everything that's unfolding in the world at this hour is a result of the chaos that was unleashed over these years that culminated in its end with an actual subversive conspiracy to undermine the duly elected president and his government in 21st century America.
[19:30:22]
It couldn't be more serious. This is one of the most profoundly important things that has ever occurred in our history. And if it's not dealt with, we consign ourselves to an obvious fate. We will lose democracy to people who want power greater than a people who want to preserve democracy.
REID: Yes.
SCHMIDT: And this is important, because it's the only system that has ever existed that places the dignity of the human being above the power of the state.
REID: And last word to you on this, Michelle.
The -- some might call it a kakistocracy, but we have it right in front of us. I mean, these are the worst of people, but there is still potential that they could still assume power next year.
GOLDBERG: I mean, I think, next year, I think more than a potential. I think it's extraordinarily likely that you're going to have the party of Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Greene and Madison Cawthorn in control of at least one House of Congress.
And not only are they going to end this investigation, but they're going to, as they have said, start their own trumped-up investigations, right? I mean, they're talking about investigations into Dr. Fauci, into kind of...
REID: Yes.
GOLDBERG: To try their investigations to legitimize the big lie.
And so we're likely to see a house of Congress become an ongoing Trumpist circus.
REID: A circus, indeed, and a dangerous one.
Steve Schmidt, Michelle Goldberg, thank you both very much.
Still ahead: A U.S. envoy delivers America's response to Russian demands about Ukraine, leaving the door open for further negotiations.
I have a pretty good idea about why Putin is lashing out at Ukraine right now. We will discuss next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:35:46]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANTONY BLINKEN, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: Our actions over the past week have sharpened the choice facing Russia now.
We have laid out a diplomatic path. We have lined up steep consequences, should Russia choose further aggression. We have stepped forward with more support for Ukraine security and economy. And we and our allies and partners are united across the board.
It remains up to Russia to decide how to respond. We are ready either way.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: With Ukraine undergoing -- under growing threat from a Russian invasion, the United States has been clear that, while there is still a diplomatic path for to ease tensions, Russia should not test U.S. resolve to inflict severe consequences and NATO's resolve to inflict severe consequences should they choose the wrong path.
The United States is joined by our NATO allies in confronting Vladimir Putin's apparent need to project a Soviet Union-size strength from a diminutive Russia. Or it might just be that Putin is still adjusting to his new reality, after four years of having a complete sycophant in the White House spouting Russian-state-controlled media talking points on this behalf.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I have President Putin. He just said it's not Russia. I will say this. I don't see any reason why it would be.
I think Putin has been a very strong leader for Russia. I mean, he's been a lot stronger than our leader. That, I can tell you.
I believe that President Putin really feels, and he feels strongly, that he did not meddle in our election. What he believes is what he believes.
BILL O'REILLY, FORMER HOST, "THE O'REILLY FACTOR": Putin's a killer.
TRUMP: There are lot of killers. We got a lot of killers. What, you think our country is so innocent?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: Joining me now is Nina Khrushcheva, associate dean and professor of international affairs at The New School.
Nina, it's great to see you. It's been a long time.
(CROSSTALK)
NINA KHRUSHCHEVA, THE NEW SCHOOL: I know. Very nice to see you again.
REID: Thank you. Thank you.
I am curious to get your take on this, because Republicans, of course, are -- in this country are using this situation, the growing sort of tension over Ukraine to say that, well, this shows that Biden is weak, President Biden is weak, that the Russians only respond to strength.
But, as I see it, I don't -- that seems to be the opposite of what's true. I mean, what the United States was to Russia, for the past four years under the previous president was kind of a lapdog, kind of a bestie, kind of a like a road dog.
Like, Trump really sucked up to Putin. And that had to inflate his ego. And not having that anymore seems to me to be part of why he's behaving the way is now. Is that true? Or is that -- or am I off-track here?
KHRUSHCHEVA: Well, I'm not -- I'm sort of agreeing with you and disagreeing with you, because I think Republicans are totally wrong that Putin responds to strength and, therefore, Biden is weak, and, therefore, Putin behaving this way. I don't think it's true.
And, actually, it is incredibly hypocritical of them, because they were supporting Trump's love for Putin all four years, and, suddenly, they have become tremendously critical of it. So, that is ridiculous.
But I also am not entirely of that thought that the Trump was a lapdog for Putin. Trump does love strong power. He does love dictators. It's not just Putin he loves. He loves all of them, Kim Jong-un, Erdogan, Xi Jinping, and whatnot.
REID: Yes.
KHRUSHCHEVA: And so, actually, Russians were much more -- I mean, in the public sphere, in the Kremlin-related media, of course, they all love Trump.
But the Kremlin itself was actually very, very calm and quiet about that, although certainly Putin appreciated the fact that there is a president in the United States who says, oh, Putin is the greatest.
So I think it's not that straightforward. But, certainly, the Republican talking point right now is that Biden is weak, and, therefore, is bordering on the insanity.
REID: Yes.
Then what do they make inside the Kremlin of the fact that the most watched cable news host right now has replaced Donald Trump as being the chief sycophant for Putin, seems to be a huge fan of his, and is sort of teaching his audience to also be fans, to the point where some of his audience are calling Republican congressmen and saying, no, side with Putin?
[19:40:06]
The Daily Beast has a piece out saying that the Kremlin -- Kremlin TV, that official state TV in Russia is not worried that Carlson's overt Putin bias, his sort of love for Putin, has gone too far. A Russian television has described Carlson as sometimes it seems that he attended advanced training courses at the Russian Foreign Ministry.
Here's a little bit of what Tucker does on his show.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS: Why is it disloyal to side with Russia, but loyal to side with Ukraine? They're both foreign countries that don't care anything about the United States. Kind of strange.
So, at this point, NATO exists primarily to torment Vladimir Putin.
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: Why do I care what is going on in the conflict between Ukraine and Russia? And I'm serious. Like, why do I care? And why shouldn't I root for Russia, which I am?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: And what does that do inside of Russia to have that kind of support on cable television in the United States night after night?
KHRUSHCHEVA: Well, it is FOX News, so it's not like he has support on cable television. He has support on FOX News.
REID: Yes.
KHRUSHCHEVA: So, there's a certain reputation. Russians -- even Russians do understand what it is.
But I do have news for Tucker Carlson, though, because I was in Moscow for a year-and-a-half writing a book, and I was on new shows over there. And I actually mentioned Tucker Carlson as that example. And nobody knew who he was.
So he's a good talking point on the Kremlin-related TV, but a normal person, and even those who watch the Kremlin TV would immediately forget. There is some dude on FOX News talks well about Putin, but who really cares?
So I think it's slightly -- for Tucker Carlson, it's kind of good post- truth fake news reality that he himself created, deciding, like Trump, he's going to be pro-Putin. But it really doesn't quite register in Russia.
REID: Yes, indeed.
And we're out of time. But I just want to put a map up to show. They try to -- he tries to pass off Ukraine as this little tiny country that's not important. It's huge. It's a huge country, second only in size to Russia itself.
Very quickly, before we go, Nina, do you expect war is a real risk here, or do you think that there's a back-down, there's a way that we wind up backing down from war?
(CROSSTALK)
KHRUSHCHEVA: Well, it's a 40-million people country, so it's quite large, so, absolutely, not a small country at all.
REID: Yes. It's huge.
KHRUSHCHEVA: I think there is a path out of it.
I think that maybe, if they can agree on kind of back down for now, at least militarily, to support Ukraine, but make sure that, politically, it becomes something completely independent...
REID: Yes.
KHRUSHCHEVA: ... and become part of the European Union immediately, I think that's a good path forward.
REID: Yes.
Nina Khrushcheva, thank you very much. And can't wait to see that book out.
KHRUSHCHEVA: Thank you.
REID: Cheers.
Tonight's "Absolute Worst" is still ahead.
But first: Florida state Democrats walked out of today's confirmation hearings for the state's new blatantly unqualified surgeon general, but did that stop Republicans from giving him the big thumbs-up? What do you think?
We will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:47:15]
REID: Dr. Joseph Ladapo, who Florida Governor Ron DeSantis picked to be the state's surgeon general, is one step closer to getting officially confirmed. And that is bad news for Floridians.
During his confirmation hearing today, the doctor refused to say that masks and vaccines work to cure COVID.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STATE SEN. LAUREN BOOK (D-FL): Do the vaccines work against preventing COVID-19, yes or no?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Recognized.
DR. JOSEPH LADAPO, FLORIDA SURGEON GENERAL: OK. Thank you again, Senator.
So, it -- yes-or-no questions are not that easy to find in science.
BOOK: We have an extreme amount of respect for this process, you, Mr. Chair, and the Senate.
However, we don't feel that we're getting any answers.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: The Democrats then walked out of the hearing.
But, because they're the minority on the committee, the Republicans were able to advance Ladapo's nomination. It is a dangerous development in the Republican scheme to keep us in the pandemic, apparently forever, elevating doctors who use their authority to spread misinformation about COVID.
Joining me now is Dr. Uche Blackstock, founder and CEO of Advancing Health Equity.
And I remember you talking about previously -- welcome, great to see you, Dr. Blackstock -- about being a former schoolmate at Harvard Medical School with this man, Dr. Ladapo.
What do you make of his inability ,repeatedly asked, to answer the simple question, do vaccines work against COVID?
DR. UCHE BLACKSTOCK, MSNBC MEDICAL CONTRIBUTOR: Joy, I was just absolutely mortified.
I texted my sister, who also attended Harvard Medical School, with me. I said, we need to round up our girls and go down there and get this man, because he is dangerous. It's one thing to spread misinformation. It's another thing to do it when you are in a leadership position, like he is, and in such an influential position.
But he's totally disregarding the science, the data that is out there that's showing how effective vaccines are. And he actually struggled to not answer that question. That was the shocking part.
REID: Yes.
And do you -- well, let me play one more thing. Do you -- well, first of all, very quickly, do you think that he really doesn't believe in vaccines and is trying to not just openly go RFK Jr. on us? Or is he just being a politician?
Because he also, if you will recall, stood up in front of the Supreme Court in his white coat with a bunch of other doctors, one of whom said you can get COVID from having sex with demons. Does he really believe this stuff or...
BLACKSTOCK: Right.
(CROSSTALK)
BLACKSTOCK: I think he has ulterior motives, power, influence. Money is probably is also very important to him.
I don't think -- he actually believes vaccines are effective. I bet he is vaccinated and boosted. I bet his entire family is. I bet his children, if they're eligible, are also vaccinated.
REID: Yes.
BLACKSTOCK: So this is all because of politics, because he has not prioritized his medical duties.
[19:50:04]
I mean, essentially he's violating the Hippocratic oath, which is do no harm.
REID: Yes.
BLACKSTOCK: So every time he gets up there at a press conference or a hearing and says something that is anti-science, he's violating the Hippocratic oath.
And, at this point, I am shocked that his license hasn't been suspended or revoked.
REID: Yes.
There's a couple of things here. I don't know if we have the time here. But CBS 12 reported Monday that Ladapo is balking at the FDA decision to limit the use of Regeneron, because that's where the money is in Florida, is giving everybody Regeneron after they get COVID.
Here he is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LADAPO: Really, we are laser-focused on data. I mean, it's just -- I think, if the pandemic has taught us anything, it's the importance of looking at data and not necessarily listening and following what other people or people that the media labels experts say.
So we're -- whatever anyone says, Florida is going to absolutely, positively put data as number one in deciding, in making...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Forgive me, are you saying that the Food and Drug Administration are not experts as to what drugs to approve and what drugs not to approve?
LADAPO: I'm saying the Florida is going to make decisions about what we treat patients, how we treat patients, how we manage patients, how we inform health policy in Florida based on data.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: I mean, that sounds like he's in the -- what do you make of that?
BLACKSTOCK: Well, he's not being honest, because he's not following the data, the data that's out there that's showing how effective vaccines are against the worst and most severe outcomes of COVID-19.
It just -- honestly, Joy, it just doesn't make any sense to me. So that's why I think he has ulterior motives, and I think that -- ahead of his obligations as a physician and someone who should be working in service to the communities in the state.
REID: Let me play somebody else who is not a doctor. This is a guy named Berenson, Alex Berenson. He's actually a "New York Times" reporter and thriller novelist, not a doctor here.
He is on "Tucker" last night.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALEX BERENSON, CONSERVATIVE AUTHOR: The mRNA COVID vaccines need to be withdrawn from the market now. No one should get them. No one should get boosted. No one should get double-boosted.
They are a dangerous and ineffective product at this point.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: This guy was banned by Twitter for repeated violations of COVID policy. That might be the most dangerous thing that's happening on television right now, that blatant statement on FOX News.
What do you make of that?
BLACKSTOCK: Right.
No, no, no, absolutely. And here you have people who are not physicians, they're not public health professionals, giving out health information. We have got into a really dire point in this pandemic, where people with no public health or medical background are giving out medical information.
This is incredibly troubling, Joy.
REID: It is incredibly frightening.
The U.S. global -- Florida death toll -- so, the U.S. COVID deaths are at their highest levels since last winner's peak. The World Health Organization says the global case -- the global case tally has set a record in the last week. We are in dangerous territory, indeed.
Dr. Uche Blackstock, thank you very much.
BLACKSTOCK: We are.
REID: Really appreciate you.
BLACKSTOCK: Thank you, Joy.
REID: Cheers.
Stay right -- thank you.
Stay right there, everyone, for tonight's "Absolute Worst." And if you're in Texas, use this time to go hide your books. Go. Hurry.
We will be right back.
Hide them.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:56:55]
REID: With the midterm elections inching closer, Republicans have done a good job ginning up fear and outrage over culture issues.
States like Texas, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee are using their favorite new tool, banning books, as a way of purging things that make them feel icky. It just so happens that those things have to do with black, brown and LGBTQ+ issues.
Let's take a beat and remember that this is the party that loves to accuse Democrats of being cancel-happy snowflakes who are always just so deep in their feelings. Well, pot, Please meet kettle.
Naturally, Texas has been at the forefront of the book banning business, because state Republicans are falling all over themselves to burnish their MAGA bona fides.
While they would like you to believe this is an organic movement, many are being egged on by right-wing advocacy groups who are rebranding their anti- intellectual, anti-history antics as parents' rights and targeting public schools.
They just never mention which parents' rights they're actually fighting for.
You can thank Texas state Representative Matt Krause for the warm embrace of state-sponsored censorship. Krause, who chaired the Texas House Committee on General Investigating, launched a Stalin-style investigation into schoolbooks and curriculums.
He has sent a list of more than 800 books to school leaders throughout the state and asked them to review if they had any books with so-called controversial topics. It should come as no surprise that, when "The Dallas Morning News" did an analysis of the list, it found that, of the first 100 books listed, 97 were written by women, people of color, or LGBTQ authors, because of course.
The school district in Granbury, Texas, a town of roughly 11,000 people, has created their own committee to review any books that include controversial topics currently under investigation by the state and legislature.
A representative for the district, which, again, is in Texas, not communist China or the old Soviet Union, told a local newspaper that they basically really don't care if you don't like it, because -- quote -- "We understand the conservative climate of our community, and that a large majority recognizes that several social and cultural topics are best left to parents and families to discuss with their children," which they won't, of course, because they feel icky about it.
Last night, the school board held its monthly meeting, and the kids that they pretend to protect tore into the school board for their book banning.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STUDENT: This ban would have adverse effects on the well-being and education of our student body.
As students, we deserve a complete education free from bias.
STUDENT: The job of the superintendent and the school board is to not only protect the students in this district, but to make them feel like they have a place in this community.
But I got to tell you, from what I'm seeing so far, you are failing at your job.
STUDENT: No government -- and public school is an extension of government -- has ever banned books and banned information from its public and been remembered in history as the good guys.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: See, these kids don't want to be stupid.
So, tonight, I want to join these kids and call out the Granbury Independent School Board, state Representative Matt Krause, and Governor Abbott, because their Orwellian, make-our-kids-dumber, state-sponsored, state-sanctioned censorship is indeed the Stalinist, weird, awful "Absolute Worst."
And that is tonight's REIDOUT. Thanks for joining us.
"ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES" starts now.