Summary
77th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. Tennessee school board bans Pulitzer Prize-winning Maus. Conservatives ramp up efforts to ban books. Conservatives move to ban books they find offensive. Biden says he stands by his commitment to nominate a black woman to the Supreme Court. Reagan says, it`s time for a woman on the Supreme Court
Transcript
ARI MELBER, MSNBC HOST: It`s signs of how this has become a central policy in American life at a time within the pandemic and a lot of work changes where people need health care.
And a note tomorrow here on THE BEAT, the legendary actor, Brian Cox, from the hit HBO show, Succession, is my special guest, making his BEAT debut. We`re going to get into all of it, including the billionaire class.
That does it for me. THE REIDOUT starts right now. Hi, Joy?
JOY REID, MSNBC HOST: How are you doing, Ari? Okay, now I want everybody, don`t move too quickly, don`t be afraid. I have some very dangerous items here on my desk. We all know that books are -- they`re extremely dangerous.
MELBER: You know, you might want to talk to people about banning them, I don`t know, Joy.
REID: Yes, I know, I know. I mean, I even have like this one, which is like -- I mean, these books are terrifying. I`m a little nervous about this segment. So, keep me in prayer. I`m a little nervous.
MELBER: You got it.
REID: Okay. Have a good night.
MELBER: You, too.
REID: All right, good evening, everyone. We begin THE REIDOUT tonight on the 77th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, marked today on this international Holocaust Remembrance Day. It`s a day that honors the millions of Jewish victims of Naziism and one of the world`s worst genocides, a day that comes as anti-Semitic incidents rise during the pandemic.
And as memories of the atrocities fade, and not just because of time but because of the normalization of extremism, and the boost that the previous president gave to the far, far right, remember, the Nazis who chanted Jews will not replace us in Charlottesville, being labeled as some of the good people on both sides.
And more recently, a deliberate national campaign of erasure and book banning, that has now succeeded in banning of a vital book about the Holocaust from classrooms. That book is Maus, a graphic novel by American cartoonist Art Spiegelman. A Tennessee school board voted unanimously to remove it from the 8th grade curriculum after officials objected to instances of curse words and an image of a nude woman. Maus is the first and to date the only graphic novel to win a Pulitzer Prize, and it has played an essential role in helping young people understand the Holocaust through the lens of personal narrative.
The story follows a Jewish survivor of Hitler`s Europe and his cartoonist son who tries to come to terms with his father`s story and history itself. As you can see here, Jews are depicted as mice, and Nazi Germans who, we should note, also had a history of banning and burning books, are depicted as cats.
The vote to ban it, which the author of Maus rightly called Orwellian, was first reported by the Tennessee Holler. It is the latest example of the radical uptick and howls from the right to ban any book that addresses or frankly even acknowledges the existence of race, racial privilege, sexuality or difficult content about America`s past.
This isn`t about so-called critical race theory, folks. This is about removing anything that makes white Americans or Europeans feel bad or allow students to understand history in context. That`s why pretty much everything is on the chopping block these days.
Reported recently in Mississippi, a mayor threatening to withhold library funding until LBGTQ books are purged, proposed legislation that sets a $10,000 bounty to be collected for every day a challenged book remains on library shelves, snd in a St. Louis area, the banning of one of the most crucial portraits on the nuances of racism, Toni Morrison`s The Bluest Eye.
We make all these Hand Maid`s Tale comparisons, likening Texas to Gilead, when we warn of dystopia, not as sci-fi, but as an American reality. This isn`t some liberal hyperbole, some left-wing freak-out, as the Republicans want you to believe. This is real and it`s happening. Not at some later time or in the hazy distant future, it`s happening now, book purging, the scrubbing of history, censoring and penalizing educators, like this teacher who was fired for discussing white privilege, and now, the banning of Maus. It sets our kids up for failure, because it robs them of not only knowledge but the ability to participate in critical thinking and debate and also empathy. But then we got to wondering, maybe that`s the point.
Joining me now is Art Spiegelman, Pulitzer Prize-winning artist, illustrator and author, and Jerry Craft, Newberry Medal-winning illustrator and author of New Kid, a graphic novel pulled by a Texas school district after a white parent complained that it promoted critical race theory and Marxism. Gentlemen, thank you for being here.
Mr. Spiegelman, I want to start with you. Your book, and I have a copy of it here, is a brilliant way to discuss and let young people confront and understand the Holocaust in a format that is popular with young people, a graphic novel format.
[19:05:04]
What do you make of these criticisms of the banning of your book based on it depicting nudity? And let`s be clear, we`re talking about nude mice, mice being nude. Please tell us.
ART SPIEGELMAN, AUTHOR AND ILLUSTRATOR, MAUS: I think the thing that`s so confusing about this is that the school board is stupid, but I don`t know that they`re Nazis. I just know that they`re stupid, the people that banned this. And the reason they were banning the mouse picture that was upsetting to them, is a small panel in an inset story and side mouse of my mother who had just committed suicide by slashing her wrists in the bathtub, and she`s just discovered (INAUDIBLE) just brought into this home.
And so when the guests at the Shiva, when the people come by for this thing to happen, and leave me alone, the thoughts that are going through my head are post-menstrual depression, Hitler did it, mommy with a picture of me very small in a concentration camp, cuddled up with her in bed as a little kid, and then her cutting her wrists and the words, bitch, underneath. So, that was one of the seven words evidently that they chose. And it`s also the titillating picture of a -- a totally -- I don`t even know how to describe it. It has nothing to do with what would conjure up a nude body any more than -- so -- so and even to be fair, just to be accurate to what they`re saying, and I think it`s interesting.
So, they`re upset that I wasn`t respectful to my mother when she died. It wasn`t an accidental word that I just threw in there because they`re upset I used the word, bitch, as well. But it was me and the turmoil of the moment after my mother had killed herself, just trying to reach for some thought of what`s just been (INAUDIBLE) in the face.
The other thing that they`re upset about is the end of the first volume, which is the one you held up, it`s actually a two-volume book, and one of the reasons the first volume remains on sale is because it`s been found to be a good teaching tool, because for people who can`t handle the entire weight of the Holocaust at whatever age they find it, this is a way to get the story up to the gates of Auschwitz. I never made the book to be dialectic (ph) at all.
Anyway, just sorry to hijack you, but the last point is that the other thing they were really upset about was saying, God damn you, to my father, at the moment that I discover that he had burned my mother`s diaries that she had reconstructed after the war and wanted me to have. And that was me being angry at a moment where this was what I end up saying a couple panels later, a second kind of murder, after all the murders we had lived through, he had murdered her memory.
And what`s important is memory. It`s important in the book. It`s important in our lives. Today is one of those day where is you`re supposed to remember, according to International Holocaust Memorial Day. But I remember this every day anyway. But the book puts memories in order. That`s what comics do anyway, because you can always see the past and the future.
REID: And your mom, to be clear, was a Holocaust survivor, the daughter of a Holocaust survivor. Is that accurate? Your parents were.
And let me ask you this question, because my kids, they watched the Boy in the Striped Pajamas, a narrative film depicting the holocaust. And that is about a child dying in the Holocaust. Romeo and Juliet, at the end, there`s a suicide, a double suicide at the end. You can go through it, Catcher in the Rye that young people read in eighth grade in some cases. What do you make of this concerted effort to take away books? It`s not just yours but others that deal with the Holocaust. In one state, they were saying that if students learn about the Holocaust, they have to hear the other side, as if there`s another side.
SPIEGELMAN: Yes, of course. I mean, I`ve always thought that English, which is one of my favorite subjects way back when I was in school, was about learning how to get inside somebody else`s head. That`s what it`s about. It`s not about being programmed. It`s not about being taught. You must be a better person or you must avoid Jews because of whatever. It`s really about climbing into somebody else`s head. So, I never made this to teach anything. And it was at a time when there was so such thing as graphic novels. I was doing this blind, and it took 14 years to --
REID: Jerry Craft, I want to bring you into this, because your book goes into something that`s equally attacked here and called critical race theory. Your book wrongly called critical race theory. It`s not. But your book is literally about a new kid having to deal with being new in school and being of a different race and how that impacts a child. That seems like something you would want kids to know about, you`d want kids to understand about empathy.
[19:10:00]
I have a statistic that shows that, first of all, white students are the minority in public schools right now. They have fallen from 54 percent to 47 percent of the public school population in this country. Black students have gone from 17 to 15 percent, and Hispanic students have increased from 22 to 27 percent. So, we`re talking about an increasingly diverse population that`s getting even more diverse as you get younger. What do you make of these attempts to essentially blind them to anything about racism and racial privilege and label that critical race theory to scare their parents?
JERRY CRAFT, AUTHOR AND ILLUSTRATOR, NEW KID: Yes, that`s exactly it. It`s like a new kid, again, a graphic novel, there`s no nudity, there`s no cursing, yet here we are. And it`s amazing that there are these parents that want to -- they don`t want their kids to see the world as it is today. The world has changed a lot. And I think kids, by rule, are empathetic. They`re curious. They want to meet new people. They want to see new things.
And I think that`s a lot of the parents if you leave the kids alone, because I never get complaints from kids, never. Not once have I ever had a kid come up to me and said, your book made me feel bad. I`ve had kids come in tears saying, you know, even incidental characters, like a couple weeks ago a kid said, thank you for the (INAUDIBLE), who is a Latino boy. Thank you for him. I never saw myself in this book before, or in any book. And the same with me with Maus, like, I hated to read as a kid. I was a grown man before I even thought that I could read for enjoyment. I could read. Reading was always for information. But I never sat down for enjoyment. And when I sat down, I think Maus might have been one of the first books that I read on my own, as like, well, let me sit down and just spend the day reading, and was blown away by it. So, I`m shocked and devastated that we`re at this point.
REID: I mean, what made me learn to read, I brought it right here, because it`s my favorite author, Toni Morrison. This is what made me love to read. And I read for enjoyment and because it was assigned in class. But I enjoyed it because it was challenging and it was interesting. And we were reading these kinds -- I mean, we read Shakespeare in seventh and eighth grade. There are murders. They read Hamlet, like these people seem to be against -- and I`ll come back to you, Mr. Spiegelman, it seems that they are terrified that children will become more empathetic, right? Because it does feels like what they`re trying to strip out of children is both knowledge and empathy.
CRAFT: Right. It`s like the African proverb --
REID: Mr. Spiegelman first and then Mr. Craft. First to Mr. Spiegelman and then Mr. Craft. I`m sorry.
CRAFT: Okay.
SPIEGELMAN: I`m concerned about the information content that`s being withheld, because you need to know stuff. That`s what you`re in school for and there`s a good reason that you need to know stuff. It`s a survival thing. And I don`t know that it`s possible when parents, as Jerry just said, interfere with the learning process.
This was meant to be -- it`s not a book that was just banned, it was part of a curriculum. They said, how can you have this in a curriculum? And when I`m figuring out, what does it mean to have one of these books in school, a curriculum is exactly how you want it because you want them to give a context. You want them to give other books that give information about the same subject, read newspaper articles, see movies. And that was exactly how this was supposed to be working. And, obviously, information is too valuable to give to poor kids.
REID: Yes, apparently. Mr. Craft?
CRAFT: Yes. And the thing is these are both part of our lives. New Kid is based on my life and of my two sons. So, I`m not making this up. Mr. Spiegelman is not making up Maus, but it`s like the African proverb, until the lion tells their side of the story, the tale of the hunt will always glorify the hunter. And so far, I guess there`s too many lions tell and write their own stories. And now there`s legislature to get this to stop. And it`s horrible.
REID: It`s horrible. And I will say that we don`t -- we`re out of time, but there are young people who are protesting this themselves because they want to learn. They want to be open to information. They want to question. They want to think. They don`t just want to be sort of drone, to go through saying America is the greatest country in the world and there is nothing ever bad that ever happened here. That isn`t sane. That is not education. Grow up, people. Your kids are smarter than you. Thank you, Art Spiegelman. Thank you, Jerry Craft. And love both of your books.
Up next on THE REIDOUT, with Justice Breyer`s retirement now official, the fight to fill his seat on the Supreme Court begins in earnest. And, yes, it will get vicious.
Also, Trump`s fraudulent electors and their role in carrying out the big lie. Will they be held accountable? New Mexico`s attorney general joins me.
Plus, another impact of the effort to tear down democracy, the national exodus of election workers, facing burnout, new rules and regulation and threats on their lives.
And tonight`s absolute worst could float all boats if they wanted, but instead they`re dropping anchor.
THE REIDOUT continues after this.
[19:15:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE BIDEN, U.S. PRESIDENT: I`ve made no decision except one, the person I will nominate will be someone with extraordinary qualifications, character, experience, and integrity. And that person will be the first black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme Court. It`s long overdue, in my view. I made that commitment during my campaign as president and I will keep that commitment.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: With the retirement of Justice Stephen Breyer, President Biden is recommitting to his campaign promise to nominate a black woman to the Supreme Court, following the lead of several of his predecessors, like Candidate Ronald Reagan in 1980.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RONALD REAGAN, FMR. U.S. PRESIDENT: I`m announcing today that one of the first Supreme Court vacancies in my administration will be filled by the most qualified woman I can possibly find, one who meets the high standards I will demand for all court appointments.
[19:20:00]
It`s time for a woman to sit among our highest jurists.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: Orange Julius Caesar did the same thing when he promised to choose a woman to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
But, according to the right-wing meltdown, when a Democrat makes the same commitment to name a black woman or any woman of color -- remember the Sonia Sotomayor freak-out -- the nominee suddenly becomes unqualified and just an affirmative action hire.
Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute complained that, since he`s only considering black women, Biden`s nominee would have an asterisk attached, and later added that Biden was overlooking more qualified candidates in favor of what he called a lesser black woman.
Shapiro has since apologized and deleted those tweets, calling the second one inartful.
But the dean of the Georgetown Law Center, which recently hired him to oversee its Center on the Constitution, said the suggestion that the best nominee could not be a black woman and the demeaning language were appalling, and at odds with everything Georgetown Law stands for.
For even more disgustingly wild racism, look no further than the right-wing echo chamber over at FOX News.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS: To exclude certain candidates based solely on race and gender is beyond extremely divisive. It may even be illegal.
TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS: Why doesn`t Biden strike a real blow for equity and just nominate Bridgett Floyd, who`s -- that was George Floyd sister. She`s not a judge or a lawyer or whatever. But, at this stage, who cares?
Clearly, that`s not the point anymore, this law stuff.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: Whew.
So, in addition to the storm of hypocritical nonsense, Biden`s eventual nominee is clearly going to face the political battle that is already beginning.
Appearing alongside Justice Breyer this morning, praising his intellect, legal insight and patriotism, President Biden said he would announce his decision on a successor within a month.
Three names are apparently on the short list, U.S. Circuit Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, California Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger, and U.S. District Judge J. Michelle Childs.
With me now, Neal Katyal, former acting U.S. solicitor general, who is also a former clerk for Justice Stephen Breyer, and Christina Greer, associate professor of political science at Fordham University.
Thank you all for being here.
Let`s just put up these -- this list again. These are, all three, brilliant women, Christina Greer.
But the fact that -- despite the fact that, literally, George Herbert Walker Bush deliberately said, I`m picking a black nominee on purpose, and they reportedly at the time in 1991 focused almost exclusively on minority and female candidates, because they wanted to make a point and replace the great Thurgood Marshall with someone black, but with the greatest possible irony, that seems to be fine, when Republicans do it.
Suddenly, each of these women gets really maligned before they even -- anyone is even nominated. We don`t even know who it`s going to be. It may not even be a judge. It could be any entirely qualified black woman.
CHRISTINA GREER, FORDHAM UNIVERSITY: Absolutely.
I mean, Joy, you say irony. I say embarrassment.
I mean, what we have right now is an embarrassment of riches.
REID: I`m trying to be nice. It`s almost Sunday.
(LAUGHTER)
GREER: Right. Well, OK. OK.
(LAUGHTER)
GREER: But, I mean, the Democrats, when choosing a black woman specifically, they have a plethora of talented black women who could be in this conversation.
And what we need to recognize is, when Ronald Reagan said a woman, when Donald Trump said a woman, what they meant was a white woman specifically. But because we use the proxy of white womanhood as just that`s who women are, and black women are left as an add-on, this is the sort of apoplectic feeling we`re getting across the street at FOX News.
And so, when we think about the 115 Supreme Court justices, all of whom, except for six, have been white men, we know that not all of them were chosen on their merits or their talent. They were chosen because they were white and they were male.
You and I have been in meeting after meeting where, whenever it comes time to talk about expanding diversity in an office, in a Supreme Court, in whatever corporate situation you`re in or academic situation, now, all of a sudden, we want to have conversations about qualifications, and should we be doing this, when the proxy has always been, the baseline has always been white maleness.
And so I think, when Joe Biden said on the campaign trail that this is something that he`d look into, there are talented women. I am just girding my loins thinking about the process that they will have to go through, the questions they will have to answer.
We saw this with Sonia Sotomayor, because not only do we know that these Republican senators are not excited to have another woman on the bench, but they do not want a black woman on the bench.
REID: Yes. I mean...
GREER: The good thing is, and where I always try and lean to the light, Joy, is that these women are talented. They are intellectually superior to the vast majority of their colleagues.
And, hopefully, they will get through the confirmation process by showing that they actually have the wherewithal and the intellectual heft, more so than many of their colleagues on various benches, to get through this process and become the next Supreme Court justice of the United States.
[19:25:00]
REID: Yes, absolutely.
I mean, I`m going through here. John Roberts was a clerk to Justice Rehnquist. He was an attorney -- aide to an attorney general. He was White House counsel. They have been solicitor -- people have been all sorts of different jobs. Some of these people were in the George W. Bush administration.
Clarence Thomas was at the EEOC. There`s nothing inherently sort of magical about white male judges that makes them automatically qualified. There are lots of people from all sorts of walks of life who could be completely qualified to be a Supreme Court justice.
Let me go to you on this, Neal.
On this question of qualifications, I want to talk to about Amy Coney Barrett just for a second, because there was no such question from the right about whether this woman ought to be qualified. It was pretty clear that they wanted her because she was a woman, and she was sort of a front for their ability and their determination to get rid of Roe v. Wade.
They want a female face on that. Linda Greenhouse, who has covered the Supreme Court forever and ever and ever, back in 2020, said this of Amy Coney Barrett: "Your resume is impressive, as the president emphasized, but, if truth be told, it`s quite thin for a Supreme Court nominee. I`m hard-pressed to think of a Supreme Court nominee in modern times who has brought such limited experience to the job."
So these are completely disingenuous, B.S. complaints, are they not, Neal?
NEAL KATYAL, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: Oh, well I think Professor Greer has it right when she says that past presidents have used -- including Republican presidents, have used litmus tests. And they have expressly said so.
And, to me, the more interesting thing is when they don`t say anything. Donald Trump, for example, he didn`t nominate a single black person to the U.S. Court of Appeals, not one. So I think that kind of -- it is inconsistent and hypocritical to hear Hannity and Tucker and all these people complaining about a race test now, when there has been one in the past.
And I think what I`m just so celebrating in President Biden is that he said, it`s time for an African-American woman to be a justice on the Supreme Court. That`s something that we should all applaud. I mean, it`s been more than 200 years in this country, and we haven`t had it.
And the best part about this, Joy, is that we have great names for this slot. Ketanji Jackson Brown is being talked about now quite a bit. I have known her for decades. She is smart. She`s savvy. And, like Chief Justice John Roberts, who replaced William Rehnquist, she clerked for Justice Breyer. So there`s a kind of parallelism there.
There`s Leondra Kruger, who was my principal deputy solicitor general when I was at the Justice Department. I don`t know that I have ever seen a better young lawyer before the Supreme Court arguing before the justices. I mean, this is someone who had incredible poise and the respect of the entire U.S. Supreme Court during each of her 12 arguments. She is just to die for.
And so that`s just two people. And so I think the idea that to say these folks are unqualified, I can`t think of something more pathetic, something more stupid, something more divisive. It`s just flatly wrong.
REID: Yes, absolutely.
And, Christina, there`s already -- on the side of that, on the side of the idiocy that`s going to happen on the right, no matter who is nominated, there`s also the politics sort of going on too. Judge Childs has a huge sponsor and supporter in Jim Clyburn, who`s been openly advocating for her and talked about her experience as somebody who`s not from an Ivy League school.
There`s the question of whether or not they should consider somebody who comes from the legal advocacy world, rather than just limiting it to judges. There`s all sorts of options.
What do you think -- just looking outside looking in, Biden has the opportunity to really shape the court with this decision long-term, especially if he picks someone young.
Should he be broadening his view about who he`s thinking about beyond just sitting justices -- sitting judges?
GREER: I think, Joy, it`s going to have to be both/and, because keep in mind we know that the president will listen to various colleagues. He will put a name forward, but he has to also think about the strategy dealing with the Senate, and who are the members of the Judiciary Committee who will help with this process and who are the members of the committee that will get this nominee confirmed.
I do think we need a lot more diversity, not just racial and ethnic and gender diversity, intellectual diversity. Thus far, Clarence Thomas is one of the only Southern justices that we have. We need -- we do need other types of representation, absolutely.
But I think that President Biden has to think about some of the senators. He`s obviously not going to choose someone radical. The women who are on these lists, none of them are radical, but they do have different C.V.s.
And they do come from different parts of the country. And they have argued various types of cases that will show different strengths, I think, as the -- as time goes on.
REID: Yes. Yes, absolutely.
And let`s keep in mind, when we`re talking about qualifications, Donald Trump doesn`t even speak proper English. He speaks, like, Palin-ese. He is not qualified. He wasn`t qualified to be president. And they let him pick a whole three justices and put them on the court for life.
[19:30:04]
So, stand down on the right if you guys are going to talk about people who are being -- people who are qualified for jobs, because you all voted for Donald Trump.
Neal Katyal, Christina Greer, thank you both very much.
Still ahead, New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas joins me, as his office moves forward with an investigation into the fake slate of electors received by Congress.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
REID: A federal judge yesterday denied bail to Stewart Rhodes, the leader of the extremist right-wing militia group the Oath Keepers, who was charged with seditious conspiracy in connection with January 6.
And one of the reasons he was deemed a flight risk, according to that judge, is because of the elaborate escape tunnels he had installed in his backyard.
The decision prompted Rhodes`s ex-wife to say this on Twitter -- quote -- "Folks, if you ever feel tempted to rent a backhoe and dig escape tunnels in the backyard of your rental house, keep in mind it may come back to haunt you if you later attempt to overthrow the U.S. government."
[19:35:06]
Excellent advice.
She also tweeted some photos of a spider hole that Rhodes had also dug. Now, it`s not the elaborate tunnel system that he built in his backyard, but you get the idea.
Meanwhile, the 84 Republicans who submitted false documents to overturn the election in several states are finally getting the scrutiny that they deserve. As the Justice Department confirmed this week, their conduct is now under federal investigation.
We have been learning that they were all part of a scheme led by the Trump campaign which directed these Republicans to effectively forge, sign and submit the fake certificates, while assuring them it was perfectly legal. And it happened across seven states. That`s 84 electoral votes that the Trump campaign needed to steal from Joe Biden.
In five of those seven states, they falsely swore that they were duly elected and qualified electors, while they knew the actual electors were voting for Joe Biden.
But the fake electors in the other two states, Pennsylvania and New Mexico, apparently got cold feet. In each of those states, they included a very specific caveat, language that effectively said their fake certificates should only be considered valid if a court ruled in Trump`s favor.
Nevertheless, New Mexico`s attorney general referred the matter to the Justice Department earlier this month. And he`s now got the investigation that he was calling for.
And joining me now is New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas.
Thank you so much for being here, sir.
And I want to ask you about that caveat. Why would putting in their submission of their electors form saying that we`re going to do this on a contingency, that, if Trump succeeds in finding enough massive fraud to overturn the election, and a judge rules that he was right, then we`re the electors, why, in your view, is that still a crime?
And what crime do you believe that that is?
HECTOR BALDERAS (D), NEW MEXICO ATTORNEY GENERAL: Well, thank you for having me, first of all, Joy. It`s great to be with you.
Well, I think that we have to start off that law enforcement agencies across this country are engaged in gathering the facts. And that`s an important step in this process.
But, to your question directly, in order to prove either state or federal fraud, there must be having a knowing, an intent and an action involved. And so that language could serve to either create a defense or to raise a question as to criminal culpability.
But we`re early in the phase right now of gathering facts. And, at some point -- and I`m glad the DOJ is involved -- there needs to be an application of all the state and federal potential crimes that could be applicable here in this case.
REID: And what are the potential state crimes that we`re talking about here?
BALDERAS: Well, if there was any type of doctoring of documents, forgery.
The one that I`m very concerned about, and I`m monitoring all of this activity that you`re covering, is the conspiracy to deploy an attack of the overall electoral system, is probably the most dangerous and risky. And that would involve either a federal conspiracy and connecting bad actors in all our respective states.
REID: And that`s -- I`m glad you brought that up.
We know that, in the case of John Eastman, who wrote that infamous memo that basically outlined how to steal the election, and it involved having this alternate set of electors, a federal judge has now told him, speed it up.
Submit these -- produce these documents and pages that have been requested by congressional investigators more quickly, Judge David Carter ordering him to begin reviewing at least 1,500 pages per business day starting on Friday, and immediately transfer any unprivileged documents to the House committee.
So, there is a little bit more activity in terms of Eastman. But his plot necessarily involved having these electors ready to go.
Do you believe that seditious conspiracy, which we have now seen charged, at least in the case of the leader of the Oath Keepers, is on the table for what these fake electors did?
BALDERAS: I believe it is.
So, if you look at our electoral system, it really is a complex system, but it`s simple. It involves voters, poll workers, then certifying who the next president will be. And so that brings all the parties together.
But what`s interesting about this case -- and I can assure you law enforcement is monitoring the production of some of this other activity, because the real question is conspiracy. Were there outside forces trying to alter the respective state outcomes in those respective seven states?
That is where these fake electors could be connected to a larger criminal conspiracy. And I think that is the greatest risk.
REID: And we know that, in some cases, elected Republicans on the federal level at least were rooting for this conspiracy to succeed, wanted it to succeed.
Are there, in your view -- is there an opening here that any elected officials that were in any way a part of this alleged conspiracy, if that is found to be the case, do you think that some elected officials could or should be charged?
[19:40:08]
BALDERAS: Well, I like to look at the investigation at this early phase that the investigations are not targeting lawful conduct of Americans participating in the electoral process.
What we`re concerned about is that the will the people be upheld and that every and any American can request an audit of the electoral system. You can sue in a court of law.
And so, after the Trump organization exhausted all those remedies, the real question is, was there additional conduct or conspiracy to really subvert or change the actual outcome and the will of the people?
And I think that is where law enforcement, both at the state level and now at the federal level, is just starting to gather those facts, because that would be illegal conduct that`s not recognized under any legal framework in this country.
REID: Thank you for all that information and clarification.
New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas, thank you very much. Really appreciate it.
BALDERAS: Thank you.
REID: All right, tonight`s "Absolute Worst" -- cheers.
Tonight`s "Absolute Worst" is still ahead.
But first: It is an unprecedented time for American election officials, facing threats, intimidation and an avalanche of new laws aimed at making it harder to vote. We will talk to one of those officials next.
We`re back after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:45:28]
REID: Hundreds of election officials across the country have become the targets of a national terror campaign launched by political zealots who believe the former president`s lies about the election he lost.
These civil servants have been the targets of violent, violent death threats. In some instances, radicalized right-wing vigilantes have even shown up at their homes, looking to terrorize their families.
Reuters conducted a sweeping investigation into more than 800 threatening voice-mails. Here`s just a small sample.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
CALLER: If you mother (EXPLETIVE DELETED) are in on this (EXPLETIVE DELETED) let me tell you what. Your days are (EXPLETIVE DELETED) numbered.
CALLER: When all of you pieces of (EXPLETIVE DELETED) and Katie are executed for treason, what the (EXPLETIVE DELETED) are your families going to do living in a world in which they know that their family members were some of the biggest pieces of (EXPLETIVE DELETED) that ever existed on the planet?
CALLER: We`re coming after you and every mother (EXPLETIVE DELETED) that stole this election with our Second Amendment.
CALLER: You guys will pay in the end, mother (EXPLETIVE DELETED). You (EXPLETIVE DELETED) cheated and lied. You guys (EXPLETIVE DELETED) lied and cheated.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
REID: Wow.
In some cases, Reuters was able to uncover the identity of the callers, who refused to apologize. In fact, they doubled down.
The Department of Justice has launched a law enforcement task force to address the rise in threats against people associated with the electoral process.
And, last week, they brought their first criminal case against a Texas man accused of threatening election and other government workers in Georgia. A recent Brennan Center survey found that 17 percent of local election officials have been threatened because of their role in the 2020 election. And it`s led to a mass exodus of election workers.
According to "The Nevada Independent," by the 2024 election, more than a third of Nevada`s 17 top county election officials will be new. And it should come as no surprise that the MAGA cult and their leader are looking to capitalize on those vacancies, filling them with people sympathetic to their crusade.
Joining me now is Deanna Spikula, Washoe County, Nevada, registrar of voters.
And thank you so much for being here, ma`am.
And I want to -- I want to ask you about your own experience. I`m reading here just in these notes by my wonderful producer that you received death threats. You were especially concerned for your poll workers who are on the front lines. They happen to be face to face with voters.
Talk about those concerns. And how many of your folks have decided to stay on for the next election?
DEANNA SPIKULA, WASHOE COUNTY, NEVADA, REGISTRAR OF VOTERS: Well, thank you for having me on. I want to first say that.
And this is such an important topic for us. So I`m really glad it`s getting some attention and that people are hearing what is happening to election officials across the nation.
For us, we have had some definite -- some death threats and some other harassing behavior. And I do have a lot of concern for my staff, for the temporary workers that come in and work in our office. And, of course, our poll workers that are out in the field, they are coming into contact with our voters out there.
And I do -- I do hope that, as we`re getting into the 2022 election, that things will start to turn around. We have a very strong, positive, optimistic view of this year. And we`re just hoping -- we have taken precautions, and we`re training our poll workers and our staff on some simple emergency protocols and things like that.
So we`re just really being proactive and trying to do our best to make sure that all of our workers are safe.
REID: And this is happening at a time when Republicans have decided that the only legitimate way to vote is in person. So you`re talking about people who believe the big lie being the ones more likely to be in line to show up.
They`re talking about sending people to watch other voters, to essentially intimidate them and bully them.
I wonder if your election staff, your election workers who, in my experience are -- these are the best citizens. These are people, they`re not making a lot of money doing this. They just -- they do it every year. I know, where I vote, it`s the same people every year, older people in a lot of cases.
Are you having trouble getting folks to show up and do this? And are they saying to you, I can`t do it anymore? That`s question one. And question two is, are those wonderful people, in your experience, being replaced by people who believe in the big lie?
SPIKULA: So, at this time, we have a lot of return poll workers.
They are very dedicated to bringing democracy to our citizens in our county. And so far, there`s only been a few that have expressed overriding concern that they don`t want to work because they are in fear of what could happen this year.
[19:50:01]
For the most part, most of them are ready and willing to serve and very eager to do so this year.
REID: Yes.
SPIKULA: We`re just in the early parts of recruitment.
So, we`re definitely working on filling in the gaps of where we do need poll workers, but, again, a very strong showing for our veteran poll workers that have worked for us before.
REID: And what would you like to see state and federal government do to offer you and your staff more protection?
SPIKULA: Some of the things that we look at, just internally, we have taken advantage of some of the offerings from federal sources.
We have done physical examinations of our physical space, looking at cybersecurity issues and those types of things. Funding. Funding is big. The federal government can definitely help us, especially with physical security, with additional funding to election officials.
REID: Yes.
SPIKULA: That can go a long way in helping us to shore up our physical spaces.
REID: And how are -- how concerned are you?
I mean, there`s a gentleman named Adam Laxalt who is running for office right now who believes in the big lie. There are other people who are of that ilk that are trying to essentially run to be the secretary of state, to be in the position to decide who gets elected.
How concerned are you that some of these people who are in this personality cult will actually be in charge of how these elections are administered in 2022?
SPIKULA: Well, there is some framework. There`s only so much, I would say, lateral movement that we can do with elections. We run them by federal and state laws.
Could they potentially be -- cause havoc? Potentially. With most of the people that we deal with, a lot of people are just in that category of having been on the receiving end of misinformation.
REID: Yes.
SPIKULA: And once that we explain things to them, how we really run elections, how our equipment really functions, most of them will say, oh, I didn`t know.
But there are some out there that just they don`t want to hear the truth. They don`t want to hear anything that`s different from what their internal dialogue is telling them.
REID: Yes. Yes.
SPIKULA: So there`s only so much we can do.
But I think the majority of people are still open-minded. And we`re trying to combat ignorance with information.
REID: Absolutely.
And I said in 2022. I meant in 2024, because this 2022 election is critical. And people need to be careful about not allowing people who are part of the big lie cult to take office and have control in any way of these elections.
But, Deanna Spikula, thank you very much. Stay safe. Really appreciate you. And election workers are heroes. Thank you very much.
And please stick around for tonight`s "Absolute Worst," because you know what? It`s no fun working without a net, in this case, a safety net.
We will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:57:10]
REID: For all the right-wing hysteria over Joe Biden`s handling of the economy, you would never know that it`s actually doing pretty great.
A report out today shows that the economy grew 5.7 percent in 2021, the fastest pace since 1984. Inflation has dampened that growth, which means that many families aren`t feeling the real-world effects of those good numbers.
Republicans and the wealthy, and especially the super rich -- and, by the way, they did gangbusters during the pandemic -- well, they like to blame inflation on increased government spending. And, yes, pumping lots of money into the economy all at one time certainly can be inflationary.
But there`s something else affecting Americans` kitchen table expenses that`s pretty much unique to us and might be why people are struggling right now. It`s this country scandalously sparse social safety net.
We have a huge issue with affordable housing, now made worse by inaction -- by the inaction of the Senate, allowing the eviction moratorium to expire. We`re the only developed country that doesn`t mandate paid family and medical leave. And that has cost workers an estimated $22.5 billion in wages annually, according to Bloomberg.
The CARES Act child tax credit dramatically slashed child poverty, but, thanks to Manchin and Sinema, the Senate let that expire too. And, of course, the major reason we don`t have a Build Back Better bill to address all of these problems is because Sinema and Manchin have played right into the conservative talking points, with Manchin claiming that it will create sky-high inflation.
Now, once again, government spending can affect inflation. And reports show that it could happen on a moderate scale. But the bill would actually ease the effects of inflation on lower-income families, you know, the people Manchin and Sinema clearly don`t care about or think that they answer to.
Moody`s economists note that the law is designed to ease the financial burden of inflation for lower- and middle-income Americans by helping with the cost of childcare, eldercare, education, health care, housing for these income groups.
Sounds like basic rights that our country should provide. And they are provisions that are widely popular with the American people. But the biggest problem here is that our country and the super-rich who run it do not care about easing the financial burden of lower- and middle-income Americans.
Here`s Senator "Mouthwash Cures COVID" Ron Johnson with the latest starve- the-poor right-wing argle-bargle.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. RON JOHNSON (R-WI): People who decide to have families and become parents, that`s something they need to consider when they make that choice.
I have never really felt it was society`s responsibility to take care of other people`s children.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: Says the senator who supports overturning people`s actual right to decide if they want to be parents or not.
And his bad take isn`t new. It is basically vintage Paul Ryan and Ronald Reagan, et cetera. And it has contributed to how poor and callous our country`s social safety net is.
And that is tonight`s "Absolute Worst."
And that is also tonight`s REIDOUT.
"ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES" starts now.