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

Transcript: The ReidOut, 3/8/2021

Guest: Angela Rye, Philonise Floyd, Benjamin Crump, Jason Crow, Lola Adesioye, Martin Lewis


House will conduct final vote on $1.9 trillion COVID relief bill.

Biden says, one more giant step and we`re closer to delivering COVID

relief. Senate approves COVID relief with no Republican support. Democratic

Senator Durbin slams just plain false claim by GOP Senator Cruz. COVID

checks could start going out this month. Biden is expected to sign $1.9

trillion COVID relief later this week. Democrats still intend to address

minimum wage hike despite its removal from COVID relief bill. Derek Chauvin

faces trial for George Floyd`s death. Oprah conducted blockbuster interview

with Meghan and Prince Harry.


ARI MELBER, MSNBC HOST: You just saw on that film, go ahead and let us

know. We`ll take a look and maybe it will even makes it way into the


Thank you for watching THE BEAT, as always. "THE REIDOUT" with Joy Reid is

up next.

JOY REID, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, everyone. We begin THE REIDOUT tonight

with a simple truth, elections have consequences. The U.S. House of

Representatives is now just one vote away, from sending real tangible

economic relief to millions of American and making good on one of President

Biden`s top campaign priorities.

The House have voted this week to send a verge of a nearly $2 trillion

COVID relief package to the president`s desk, to be signed into law. And

just plain facts are that if Democrats hadn`t won those two Senate seats in

Georgia in January, this might not be happening at all.

After a lot of Democratic internal wrangling, the bill passed the

Democratic-controlled Senate over the weekend with absolutely zero votes

from Republicans, not a single vote. It now heads back to the House for

that final vote, and if they pass it as is, that`s it. The bill heads to

President Biden`s desk, done deal.

President Biden said today, that he would sign it as soon as he gets it,

and the legislation could not be more urgently needed, as he indicated over

the weekend.


JOE BIDEN, U.S. PRESIDENT: We took office 45 days ago and I promised the

American people help was on the way. Today, I can say we`ve taken one more

giant step forward in delivering on that promise, that help was on the way.


REID: Today, the White House said the $1,400 checks included in the plan

could start going out by the end of the month. And make no mistake, this

bill is massive. It stands to help millions and millions of Americans who

have been economically crippled by a near year-long pandemic. The

Washington Post notes that the bill spends most of the money on the

American people, describing it as one of the most generous expansions of

aid to the poor in recent history. And The New York Times points out that

the child tax credit in the bill is a policy revolution in the making. More

than 93 percent of children, 69 million, would receive benefits under the


The version of the bill approved by the Senate isn`t perfect. It passed

with changes to the income threshold for those $1,400 direct payment and

caps federal jobless benefits at $300 per week instead of a $400 Biden

wanted. Those changes were pushed in part by Democratic Senator Joe Manchin

of West Virginia. And that could make it a tough pill to swallow by

progressives in the House.

But even with those changes, Vermont`s independent progressive senator,

Bernie Sanders, called it the most significant piece of legislation to

benefit working families in the modern history of this country.

Meanwhile, Republican senators of the party that claims that it`s a party

of the working people but who did nothing to support the bill, or really

their own constituents, because they can`t address the fact that they

didn`t support it, are now just lying about the bill.


SEN. JOHN BARRASSO (R-WY): This was a liberal wish list of liberal

spending, just basically filled with --

SEN. TOM COTTON (R-AR): Look how crazy some of the Democratic ideas are. I

mean, they had a chance on Saturday morning to stop checks from going to

prisoners, and on that vote, they declined it.

SEN. PAT TOOMEY (R-PA): There`s reparations for minority farmers that

don`t have to demonstrate any financial stress or any adverse effect from

COVID, but they`ll get 120 percent of whatever indebtedness they have just

paid for by the taxpayer, but not if you`re a white farmer.


REID: Reparations, clutch your pearls. So these senators are doing this

cut rate version of the acted that worked so well for they are still boss,

who`s now just a Florida retiree bullying them with weirdly presidential

seal looking statements.

But here is the thing. They`re not Donald Trump. So the Discount Donalds in

the insurrection caucus are really easy to smack down. Here is Majority

Whip Dick Durbin, not usually a fighting guy, giving old Ted Cancun Cruz

the business.


SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX): The question for the American people to answer is

should your money, should taxpayer money be set $1,400 to every illegal

alien in America? This amendment provides that it should not.

SEN. DICK DURBIN (D-IL): The statement of the Senator from Texas is just

plain false, false. Let me be clear. Undocumented immigrants do not have

social security numbers and they do not qualify for stimulus relief checks,



REID: Oops. For more I`m joined by Angela Rye, former Executive Director

of the Congressional Black Caucus, and Charlie Sykes, Editor-At-Large for

the Bulwark.

And you know, Angie, the thing that so funny about is that these guys are

throwing out statement that you can like fact-check on Twitter. I mean, Tom

Cotton and Ted Cruz both voted for the previous version, the CARES Act,

which also allowed people who are in prison to get checks, which allowed --

these things are just extensions of the same staff but just adding more


I wonder if the sort of benefit they get by saying those words and then

having that repeated on social media and on conservative media, is that

enough to justify being able to be so easily fact-checked, including maybe

in ads?


CAUCUS: You know, Joy, I would love to understand what makes these people

get on the Senate floor, or for some of the House members too, going to the

House floor, after taking an oath and just blatantly lying to the American

people for you know a few pats on the back by randoms who don`t have any a

allegiance to facts, whatsoever.

I think what`s so interesting is, in Ted Cruz`s remarks, he, of course,

talks about undocumented folks getting stimulus checks but he must not know

the process. And perhaps, Joy, it goes back to the very idea of Cancun. You

know, he`s so out of touch that he doesn`t realize you actually have to

have a social security number to get a stimulus check. Like let`s just

start there.

And I think to your point, it could be easily fact-checked on Twitter, but

most importantly what I would love to see is someone with a moral fiber,

some type of conscience representing the American people in that bogus

claims for the right.

REID: Yes. And, you know, Charlie, the thing about it is they`re also not

going to get a pat on the back from the man they want it from the boss. I

mean, the person they want to cuddle them, that`s in Florida, is not going

to cuddle them, because he does not care about the Republican Party. And

the people in the party who you would think want to stand and fight for it

are like, I would rather quit, I`d rather get out of the Senate and retire

than stay and try to fight for the integrity of my party.

The party is being left for the Ted Cruzs and the Tom Cottons. Look at

these five who are living, Toomey is like, I`m done, I did my club for

(INAUDIBLE), I got my Senate -- I got my taxed cut, I`m rich, gut my tax

and I`m out. Richard Burr, I`m out. Rob Portman, Richard Shelby, Roy Blunt.

Like these are like the old school Republicans. They`re not fighting for

the integrity of the party. They`re just like, let the Trumpies have it. So

is that what`s going to happen? Are we just going to basically going to

have John Birch society 2.0?

CHARLIE SYKES, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Well, you`ll going to get a more Trumpie

United States Senate if the Democrats don`t pick up those seats. Yes,

because what you`re seeing is that the old school senators, you know, came

there to legislate, to debate, to legislate, to compromise. And what you`re

seeing now is basically the Senate is dominated -- the Senate Republicans

have dominated by the people who want the sound bite.

You know, why does Ted Cruz say the things that he says, because he knows

that that`s going to be played on Fox News. That is the -- that`s the mean,

that is the narrative, it`s going to play in conservative media and the

fact-check won`t ever really catch up with the fact, you know, that he`s

waving that bloody shirt. And it is sort of you know, Trump 2.0. You now

have that $1.9 trillion piece of legislation and they`re focusing on the

bogus claim that aliens will get it.

Look, I think that one big question, is how is this going to be different

from 2009? Republicans just think that by voting no, that they`re going to

be able to run against this big spending package and have big wins in the

midterm election. And the big difference is, number one, Joe Biden knows

he`s got to sell it, he`s got to be out there aggressively explaining

what`s in the package.

And number two, unlike, say, Obamacare, the benefits are going to be

showing up in people`s bank accounts within the next few weeks. They`re not

going to have to wait until after the election to see what`s in this bill.

So I think that this is a very different political situation, and yet the

Ted Cruzs of the world keep pretending it`s 2009 all over again.

REID: Well, you know, and, Angela, people like Masha Gessen have been

talking about the fact that, you know, the Republican Party is developing

into this sort of cryptofascist entity that basically is just like,

everything the ruling party is doing is bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, we`re just

going to run against it, and it doesn`t matter even if we agree with the

underlying stuff. And the idea is to just degrade people`s trust in

government at all and their faith in government at all.

And I wonder, for the Democrats, if they`re looking at a midterm where

Republicans are just going to be screaming about undocumented people and

trying to do the brown scare and the black scare again, that criminals are

getting in, and you know what they mean when they say criminals, right,

that they`re going to do the racist, they`re just going to pretend the bill

doesn`t exist as the check in your hand.

I wonder if you feel like Democrats are ready for that? Because not even

all the Democrats could agree on $15 an hour, they couldn`t even get their

own people to pass probably the most powerful thing that would reduce

poverty, which would be $15 an hour. They couldn`t even get that to happen.

So I wonder if you sense if the Democrats are ready for what they`re about

to face.

RYE: You know, Joy, it`s such a profound point, and we talk about this

often both privately and publicly about the idea of a big tent and what it

means, the types of compromises that you have to reach. There are some

things that should just be based on a moral compass.

And you would think, right, that Republicans would be in lockstep with

trying to really provide the American people relief. But as you just said,

you know, when we started the show, you have Pat Toomey on, you listed him

as a Republican who is ready to retire, but this is somebody who just was

talking about black farmers receiving reparations as if he`s never heard of

the Pigford Settlement, right?

There are things that make sense to make sure that people are finally made

whole, and who cares if it`s as a result of a pandemic or if it`s as a

result of another black man or woman being killed by the police, or if it`s

because, economically, people are suffering. We just need to do the right


To the point, if Democrats can`t find the courage, and if Republicans can`t

find the courage to reach across the aisle and do the right thing because

people are suffering, I think it`s more than bipartisanship that is in

harm`s way. It is literally the very livelihood of so many Americans that

don`t care who was the reason that got things across the finish line.

But I will tell you, thank God for Raphael Warnock and for Jon Ossoff who

knew that this particular measure around black farmers needed to go, Cory

Booker, because when Joe Manchin is in the way of another Joe, Joe Biden,

at least those two are there. Thank God for special elections.

REID: Oh, Amen. I mean, the funny thing about it though is, Charlie, I

don`t think that these Republicans think they understand Trump the way they

think they do, right? I mean, Lindsey Graham, is on Axios, being like,

Trump has got some bad point. But he`s going to grow the party. Do they --

I donƒ_Tt know if they understand that the way that Donald Trump pulled

that off, A, because he was famous and he got away with a lot of staff,

but, B, he was the checks guy.

He wasn`t the, tell me how I can justify sending you checks guy, he has

sent farmers checks sight unseen. You`re a farmer? You want some money.

Here`s some money, vote for me. You want some money in the stimulus? Take

all the money. He understood that checks are good politics.

But Donald Trump wasn`t about fiscal responsibility, he was like spend all

the money. Send it to all the airlines, send it to the people who have

cruise ships, send everybody money, and that is to buy their votes. So I

don`t understand, even what, they don`t -- they think they`re doing

Trumpism, but they`re not.

SYKES: You know, they don`t quite get that. Remember when Donald Trump was

trying to push for the $2,000 check right before the election and it didn`t

get anywhere with all of that. I always think it`s interesting. You`ve got

a Republican in the room saying, okay, you keep talking about socialism.

Define socialism. And when Donald Trump was sending all those checks to the

farmers, does that qualify as socialism? I would like a definition.

But you mentioned that interview with Lindsey Graham where he`s talking

about the magic of Donald Trump, when he says he`s a combination of Jesse

Helms, Ronald Reagan and P.T. Barnum, which was a weird thing to say

because Jesse Helms, of course, he`s a pro-segregationist, you know,

senator, who would actually filibuster the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday.

P.T. Barnum was known as the prince of humbug. And then, of course, there

is Ronald Reagan.

And it`s like, what concoctions are you thinking of there, that you`re

comparing Donald Trump to one of the most notorious bigots in American

politics, a circus ringleader and then Ronald Reagan? And yet somehow what

Lindsey Graham thinks, there is some magic in all of that? No, I don`t

think that he quite gets it.

REID: Or he does get it and he was being accurate.

SYKES: Well, maybe -- okay maybe he was.

REID: He gets it.

SYKES: I was actually surprised he didn`t mention George Wallace at a

certain point.

REID: He probably at the last second said, let me leave out Wallace, let

me leave off Wallace, so that Donald Trump doesn`t figure out what I`m

saying because he`s blinking through the T.V. He knows exactly what he`s

saying. He`s a southern senator.

SYKES: But why does he think it`s magic?

REID: Because it`s -- because it is for certain part of his base. We can

go on like this because I`m telling you, I think he knew exactly what he

was saying. I think Angela agrees with me.

Angela Rye, Charlie Sykes, thank you all both very much. Up next on THE

REIDOUT, the Derek Chauvin murder trial. George Floyd`s brother, Philonise,

joins me on the family`s quest for justice.

Plus, Ted Cancun Cruz is now an outcast at his own alma mater. Princeton

University`s debate society, the oldest in America voting to strip Cancun

Cruz a prestigious public service award because of his effort to overturn

the election.

Cruz as the prime candidate, as he always is for tonight absolute worst,

for his xenophobic lies about undocumented immigrants getting COVID relief

checks. But believe it or not, we found someone even worst, seriously, we

really did. The big reveal is coming up.

And I have a lot to say about Oprah`s blockbuster interview with Meghan and

Harry. THE REIDOUT continues after this.


REID: The trial of Derek Chauvin, the former Minneapolis police officer

accused of killing George Floyd, started in Minneapolis today. Chauvin, who

infamously was recorded kneeling on Floyd`s neck for 8 minutes and 48

seconds is charged with second-degree murder and man slaughter. Jury

selection was supposed to begin today but got pushed back, while an appeal

proceeds of whether or not prosecutors are also able to charge him with

third-degree murder.

George Floyd death sparks protesters across the country and a nationwide

reckoning with America`s history of racism and police brutality. Those

protests continue today in downtown Minneapolis where the high profile

nature of the case could make it difficult to find an impartial jury.

The questionnaire given to possible jurors includes questions on whether

they`ve ever watched or discussed George Floyd`s death or if they

participated in any marches against police brutality. It goes so far as to

ask, did you carry a sign? What did it say?

Joining me now is Philonise Floyd, George Floyd`s brother, and Ben Crump,

attorney for the Floyd family. Thank you both for being here.

And, Mr. Floyd, I want to first ask you about that, the way that this jury

selection is going to proceed. What do you make of the fact that they seem

to be at least trying to identify, if not, maybe weed out, people who

protested the death of your brother?

PHILONISE FLOYD, GEORGE FLOYD`S BROTHER: Me, basically, I really just think

-- I think it`s ridiculous, because I think that everybody should have the

opportunity to speak on what they believe in.

But I understand the process of elimination. So, it`s their job to do what

they need to do. And it`s my job to do what I have to do, and also my team.

REID: Indeed.

And, Ben, we have been through this. I don`t even want to count them at

this point. We have been doing this since 2006, when I first met you on

these kinds of cases.

And I am very cynical at this point as to whether the criminal justice

system is even prepared to deal with these kind of situations. But I want

to get your take.

You now have this third-degree murder charge taken off, because, generally,

third-degree murder has been about you spray bullets everywhere in the

crowd and somebody gets hurt, or you do something that basically could

result in death, but endangers lots of people and then one person dies.

So, that was taken off. Do you think that that`s a good thing? Or do you

think that taking any charges off the table makes it such a narrow lane to

go down for conviction that it makes conviction less likely?


of the opinion, like you, it is very difficult to have a police convicted

for killing an unarmed black person in America.

We saw any number of cases where they did not hold them accountable. That`s

why I agree with Attorney General Keith Ellison, the first African-American

attorney general of the state of Minnesota.

No, we want to make sure we have every charge possible presented to the

jury to make sure that Derek Chauvin is held criminally liable for killing

George Floyd, just like they do in our community, Joy. They throw the whole

book at us. They has to have every lesser included there, so if the juror

don`t think it was this here, we are going to convict on that.

And that`s what we got to do. We don`t want anything different than if the

roles would have been reversed and George Floyd would have did this Derek

Chauvin. How many charges do you think they would have had on George?

REID: Yes, I mean, having been on a grand jury, it`s like they charge like

10 things to make sure you can pick one of them. You`re going to get them

on something.

Mr. Floyd, how -- is the family prepared for an outcome like the ones we

have seen in previous case, not just of police, but even people who were

acting like police who killed a black man or child and just walked away?

You think of the Tamir Rice case, where you see the video of this officer

just drive up and shoot this child, this little boy, who`s playing with a

toy gun, like any little boy would, and that couldn`t result in conviction.

When it`s -- when the odds are so -- the odds are so low that he will be

convicted, is the family emotionally prepared for that outcome? Or are --

or do you believe that a conviction is possible?

FLOYD: I believe that a conviction is possible.

We want justice, just like everybody else who was marching out in the

streets, because just look at the video. If you look at the video, you can

see that was wrong. It was a modern-day lynching in broad daylight. He had

his knee on my brother`s neck for eight minutes and 46 seconds.

Nobody tried to render aid. An EMT worker tried, and they just, like,

pushed him back, like no. And it was him -- he -- it`s like he intended to

do that. And my brother laid there with his face down in a prone position,

blood dripping out of his nose, and he was steady saying that he couldn`t


And the officer, he didn`t care. Nobody cared. It was a tragedy that we

shouldn`t have had. And that`s the reason that this is a global movement,

and people are marching all around the world, because we don`t want this to

happen anymore.

REID: Yes.

FLOYD: We`re tired of seeing the same thing. Mm-hmm.

REID: I want to ask you both, because there is a -- there`s a law that`s

named after your brother, Mr. Floyd. It`s called the George Floyd Justice

in Policing Act. Only one Republican voted for it in the House, by mistake,

and then took it back and said, oops, I accidentally pushed yes, when I

meant no. So no Republicans support it.

So it`s got a tough road to go in the Senate.

Do you support it? Because there are -- there`s another version of this

bill that would cut police funding way down, if not totally, but this bill

does ban the choke hold. It overhauls qualified immunity, and it does some

other things that I`m -- that you have expressed -- I have seen interviews

where have expressed support for.

Do you support the bill as it is, the George Floyd Act?


FLOYD: I support the George Floyd Act.

It is something that we have needed in this nation. There`s been a civil

rights movement all the way back. You can start in 1950s and 1960s. You`ve

seen people marching with Dr. King. Everybody was trying to prevent what

happened to my brother, because Dr. King said it a long time ago.

He had a dream that all men and women, boys and girls could join hands

together around this world. When my brother was killed, it started

happening. You see people walking in the streets, hold their hand, no

matter what race, Caucasian, African-American, Chinese, Asian. Everybody

was out during the COVID pandemic.

And people will risking their life all for what was right. And that touched

me. And the protesters that did that, hey, they ought to be having their

faces on Mount Rushmore and things like that, because they did what they

had to do.

They got out.

REID: Yes.

FLOYD: And they participated in something that we should have been doing a

long time ago, changing. It`s time for change. And that time is now.

REID: Indeed. I don`t think anybody can argue with that.

And, Ben, there`s -- it`s already starting, the thing that -- again, we

have seen this act before -- the reports they`re putting out that they`re -

- well, there were drugs found in the car, trying to sort of bring up other

reasons, others sort of excuses for what happened to George Floyd, and what

looks like an attempt to attack his character.

What can be done about that? Is that something that can be kept out of this


CRUMP: Unfortunately, Joy, they are going to be giving some latitude to

talk about anything that may have contributed to the death of George Floyd.

But we have to remember two things, Joy. George Floyd was walking, talking,

breathing just fine until Derek Chauvin put his knee on his neck for eight

minutes and 46 seconds.

And I learned in law school that, literally, if you got the facts on your

side, you argue the facts. When you don`t have the facts on your side, you

attack the character of your opponent, in hopes that it will be a

distraction that keep people not focused on the facts.

Well, we are focused on that video. And that video tell us everything we

need to get a conviction and hold these officers liable and try to change

this excessive use of force of black people, I mean, over and over again,

Joy Reid. We have done it since Mike -- 2006, Martin Lee Anderson.

REID: Yes. Yes.

CRUMP: I mean, on and on and on, Tamir Rice, Michael Brown. I mean, how


REID: Yes, it is a question that has no answer, my friend. And there will

be video in the courtroom for -- everyone`s going to be able to see it.

And if they do try to attack George Floyd`s character, they`re going to

have to do it on camera. We`re all going to be able to see it. And perhaps

there will be some accountability politically if they -- if prosecutors try


Philonise Floyd, again, always condolences to you. And thank you so much

always for sharing some time with us.

Ben Crump, my friend, thank you very much. Appreciate you.

CRUMP: Thank you.

REID: And still ahead: a new report on -- cheers -- a new report on

security features during the Capitol -- failures during the Capitol

insurrection. Calls for more police, more fencing, and better integrated


Will addressing these concerns keep members of Congress safe?

We will be right back.


REID: A new nonpartisan report finds that the U.S. Capitol is still

vulnerable to the kind of deadly violence we saw on January 6.

Lawmakers were briefed today on the alarming findings of a six-week review

led by retired Army Lieutenant General Russel Honore. As a no-nonsense

commander Honore is best known for coordinating the military`s relief

effort in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina and was widely acclaimed for

succeeding where FEMA had failed.

Now his review has found that U.S. Capitol Police were understaffed,

insufficiently equipped and inadequately trained to secure the Capitol.

Furthermore, they are not postured to track, assess, plan against, or

respond to the threats Congress now faces including emerging domestic


Among other things, the task force recommends a quick-reaction force to

respond to crises, a streamlined decision-making process to avoid delay,

increased staffing and intelligence, authority to call in the National

Guard, and mobile fencing and mounted police units.

Of course, as NBC News reports, enacting the recommendations would mean

boosting the Capitol Police budget, which is an already sizable $460

million a year.

I`m joined now by Congressman Jason Crow of Colorado.

Congressman Crow, thanks so much for being here.

Let`s start on the money. I think, for a lot of people, they look at that

$430 million, $460 million existing budget for the Capitol Police and

wonder, why should they get more money if they did such a poor job of

responding the first time around?

What do you say to that?

REP. JASON CROW (D-CO): Hi, Joy. Thanks for having me on tonight.

Well, the money is coupled with recommendations -- recommendations, changes

in training changes in operational chain of command, intelligence-

gathering. It`s not just the money. It`s what`s behind the money.

Now, that dollar amount was actually a range of different options. They

presented to us a range of different options. Clearly, we were not ready to

respond to a January 6-style attack. And there are many, many deficiencies

that were identified by the task force.

So, I actually feel better coming out of that briefing than I felt going

into it, because they did look at the strategic level issues and

deficiencies. They looked at the tactical level deficiencies, and

improvements that need to be made.

Now, the question is, are we going to make them? Are we going to actually

act upon those recommendations and do what`s necessary to secure the

Capitol and our democracy?

REID: Well, I mean, to do that, you`re going to need Republicans.

Theoretically, you should want them to sign on to it, because they were

also attacked. They weren`t running toward the attackers. They were running

away from him with you all.

But what do you make of these attacks on General Honore? Now, when I heard

that there was -- there was going to be this sort of commission, I thought,

who would you want? You would want General Honore. He`s a no-nonsense guy.

You yourself are a former Army Ranger. I think you`re 82nd Airborne -- were

82nd Airborne.

You know what generals sound like, right? They`re not, like, dainty in the

way they talk. And they have tried to go after him for having criticized

Josh Hawley. We will put this tweet up that he had put up, saying,

basically, this little piece of blank with his Yale law degree should be

run out of D.C. and disbarred ASAP.

But what he was talking about was, Laurence Tribe, the professor, had

tweeted -- sent out a tweet calling for Hawley to be expelled because Josh

Hawley supported the insurrection. He gave the fist up to the

insurrectionists. He voted to overturn the election.

He actually was on the wrong side. And so Russel Honore wasn`t just

attacking him politically. He was attacking him because of that. And yet

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy went after him yesterday, saying:

"General Honore`s notorious partisan bias calls into question the

rationality of appointing him to lead this review and raises the

unacceptable possibility the speaker desired a certain result, turning the

Capitol into a fortress."

What do you make of those criticisms? Do you think they are -- do you think

they`re -- do you think -- do you think those criticisms are just an

attempt to evade the fact that the Capitol needs more security?

CROW: Well, Kevin McCarthy is trying to undermine the legitimacy of the

entire review process.

He actually doesn`t want to even acknowledge that January 6 occurred. He`s

trying to move on. He`s trying to move past it. He`s trying to sweep it

under the rug. So, he doesn`t want anything to be brought out about this

and any changes, because, obviously, the changes would mean that something

really terrible happened, because it did.

But at the end of the day, I`m not going to accept the recommendations by

General Honore or any other general just because they`re a general. I`m a

former Army Ranger. I served three combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I have a thing or two to say about mismanagement of wars, problems with the

way that certain missions have been led. I hold generals accountable all

the time as a member of the Armed Services Committee. So, being a general

doesn`t mean you`re right. But being right means that you`re right.

So, this report actually had the elements that I was looking for. It looked

at things in detail. There`s actually a much more detailed classified

report that`s many times this length that I`m going to be looking at this


But I think we`re on the right track. And the bottom line is, nobody wants

a January 6-style attack or any attack to happen again. And to prevent that

from happening again, changes have to be made.

REID: And do you worry at all that this sounds like a further

militarization of the process of this particular police department that

answers only to Congress?

And, generally, the militarization of police has been bad. It`s been bad

for peace protesters. It`s been bad for Black Lives Matter. It`s been bad

for non-white protesters. It`s generally been used against people on the

side of asking for more rights and more protection of their rights, not

really for -- this was the first time we saw the far right sort of even

discussed when it comes to trying to protect against their ability to


Do you worry that, if the Capitol Police get more power and more

militaristic-style power, that, ultimately, when the other side is in

charge, it`ll be used against people who just want peace or who want police

not to be killing people?

CROW: Well, I`m somebody that`s been very sensitive to militarization of

police. I have been vocal about that. I have pushed back on it. I have

helped, supported amendments to the DOD budget that have prevented that

from happening to local law enforcement around the country.

But if this is done right, it actually means less militarization. It

actually means less power. And it means that we`re not doing things on an

ad hoc, situation-by-situation basis. It means we have very clear rules of

engagement. We have a very clear and accountable command structure. There

are rules and guidelines that govern that.

And there are actually things that are put into place, barriers, electronic

fences, sensors, closed-circuit cameras, automatic locks that actually

prevent force from being used, that prevent these things from happening in

the first instance.

So, if it`s done, right, it actually means you`re safer, you`re less

militarized, and we prevent force from ever being used.

REID: Congressman Jason Crow from my former neck of the woods out in

Colorado, thank you very much. Really appreciate your time, sir. Appreciate


CROW: Thanks, Joy.

REID: And -- cheers.

And still ahead: my thoughts on Oprah`s bombshell interview with Prince

Harry and Meghan Markle. Ah, yes.

But, first, it`s time, yes, for tonight`s absolute worst. You are not going

to want to miss it.

Stay with us.


REID: Well, the light at the end of the proverbial pandemic tunnel just

got a little bit brighter with the CDC administering 5.3 million vaccines

over the weekend, meaning there are now 60 million people who have received

one or both doses of a vaccine in the United States. Of course, none of

this means we are out of the pandemic. The U.S. now faces a fourth surge as

the variants spread.

And the anti-mask movement has something to do with that. Here are

protesters attending a mask burning in Boise, Idaho. That state, mind you,

doesn`t even have a mask mandate. And allegedly (ph) grown up adults

encourage children to burn brand new, unused PPE. Adorable.

It`s a movement emboldened by the Republican public officials responding to

private corporate interests. Yet in doing so, they are putting small

businesses solely in charge of their own safety.

Texas and Mississippi governors who are both vaccinated, by the way, lifted

their mask mandates, but neither state is getting vaccine priority to those

in the recent, retail or grocery sectors, which brings us to the issue of

workers, who are the targets for physical and verbal attacks, along with

potential infection as they asked and plead for people to just abide by

their company mask policies.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It`s a hoax. I`m not going to wear a mask. This is

America and you don`t have to do what they say.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Count your days! Count your days! Bully!

What? This is giving you the right to be a bully? Because you`re


I`m a scientist. There is no corona! Don`t make me wear your masks. Are you

trying to kill me?


REID: #she`snotascientist.

Anti-masking while racist is also in full swing. When a Mexican restaurant

in Houston announced it would continue to require masks, people sent them

hateful messages, threatening to report staffers to Immigration and Customs

Enforcement. No shoes, no shirts, no service, these rules are typical

accepted, along with laws against jaywalking and smoking in planes and

driving while drunk.

But you thrown in wear a mask into the mix, and suddenly, it`s about

personal freedom. Well, personal freedom for who? Are these same protesters

blazing fires in front of state capitols for women and their right to

choose? Does the rallying cry of "I can`t breathe with a mask hanging under

your chin have the same impact when it`s a rallying cry against chokeholds,

like the one that killed George Floyd?

I think we know the answer to that. That personal freedom for anyone except

them, and they will fight for that right even if it kills you. And when

you`re in, we know all too well that it could absolutely kill you.

And that`s why anti-mask bullies are the absolute worst.

More REIDOUT after the break.


REID: Today, people in the United Kingdom finally got to see what all of

America is talking about, Oprah Winfrey`s blockbuster interview with Meghan

and Harry.

The British subjects of Queen Elizabeth got to hear the duke and duchess of

Sussex detail their nearly four-year struggle with exclusion, racism and

the royal family`s rigidity.


MEGHAN MARKLE, DUCHESS OF SUSSEX: In those months when I was pregnant, all

around this same time, so we have in tandem the conversation of he won`t be

given security, not going to be given a title, and also, concerns and

conversations about how dark his skin might be when he`s born.


Meghan shared with us that there was a conversation with you about Archie`s

skin tone.


WINFREY: What was that conversation?

HARRY: That conversation I am never going to share. But at the time, at

the time it was awkward. I was a bit shocked.

WINFREY: Can you tell us what the question was?

HARRY: No. I`m not comfortable with sharing that.


REID: It was a deeply personal and shocking interview that though frankly

not at all surprising to people of color who watched it and it`s triggered

a massive royal scandal not seen since the mid-`90s with Harry`s mother,

Princess Diana.


HARRY: What I was seeing is history repeating itself or far more dangerous

because then you add race in and you add social media in, and when I`m

talking about history repeated itself, I`m talking about my mother.


REID: In a right on cue, the U.K.`s trashest tabloids, the very same ones

who`d been torturing Meghan Markle since the wedding promptly went to work

savaging the couple, trying to undermine their claims and presenting the

queen as the real victim in all of this.

And for more, I`m joined by Lola Adesioye, social and political

commentator, and Martin Lewis, political commentator and humorist.

Thank you both for being here.

And, Lola, you know, as I watched that interview, as showing as it was,

again, I was not surprised by the racism that Meghan has received, because

she`s been attacked and attacked and attacked in the tabloids, and every

black woman knows what it is to be thrown down as the angry woman, as the

bully. It`s always that the other princess, you know, William`s wife, is

the poor victim of this vicious black woman who`s bullying her and hurting

her. It was easy to see how this was coming and you can see where they were

coming from. I was not surprised by it.

It`s sort of sad to see that, you know, Diana`s youngest, who clearly took

on so much of his mother`s ethos in terms of his openness on issues of

race, even just dating someone like her, obviously, he was open already and

then he just really realized and got a lesson in racism from dating her.

But I wonder what you make of the fact that it really took them to leave

the country, to get physically away from the commonwealth, had to leave

everything and then set themselves up in the United States in order to be

even speak that truth and then when the truth came out it was literally

what every black woman feels like they would face in that situation.


she would be a modernizing force, but change is sometimes welcomed in the

beginning but not welcomed when it starts to create change, right?

And so, Meghan`s presence as a woman of color in a royal family, let`s

really think about this. The very idea of having a monarchy in the way that

the U.K. monarchy is formed is on an outdated model, it`s the model of

people who are basically superior by virtue of their birth, by their virtue

of their blood, by virtue of their linage, is the epitome of privilege, is

the epitome of the status quo, and this is a family that`s been in

existence for literally hundreds of years.

So, are they going to want to change their ways just because one person has

come in and, you know, shown a new face? She was a new face. You know?

Interesting for a while until that started to create ripples within the

family and yes, she is a black woman and not just a token black woman, a

woman with a voice.

And so, they had to move away. Even the idea of the commonwealth, the

commonwealth is a bunch of countries which was subjects, colonial subjects

of the U.K., of England. I mean, by itself, that tells you a lot.

There`s no way that this -- I anticipated that they would have ended up

moving. There`s no way this kind of change to happen within the royal

family without there being something dramatic and explosive that happened


REID: Well, right.

And, Martin, you know, I mean, you think about the fact, right, it is a

commonwealth. I mean, but first of all, if you want to talk about lineage,

Queen Charlotte is in their lineage, and there are all the stories about

how she was painted and whether or not the fact that she also was of a

mixed race with black heritage, whether that was sort of tried to be

subordinated, right, in their history, but there`s also the German side. I

mean, these people`s name, Windsor, they made it Windsor so they could

degermanize themselves and separate themselves from the Germanic royal

families, including in Russia where the people took out the royal family,

took out the czar which was King George`s like first cousin.

So they have all of these sort of anxieties that you can see at the surface

of the story and that Harry kind of alluded to, but speak specifically to

the ones that Lola talked about. The fact that the -- that they are this

sort of colonial empire that took over all of these black and brown

countries and subordinated them, and first you have Diana who then bonds

with those people. They hate her.

Then you have Meghan who even more can in some ways bond with those people

and she has the same magic with those people and they hate her.


I mean, the thing is one likes to think of merry old England and sweet

people and think of the lovely philosophy of the Beatles, all you need is

love, but you scratch the surface in Britain and you find something quite


You know, in June 2016, that`s the month of Harry met Meghan. That`s also

the month of Brexit. That`s the referendum when the British people chose in

their infinite stupidity to leave Europe that had been a force for peace

and economic stability. And that was the canary in the coal mine that told

us that Trump was coming.

And that was typical of the British because in the same way the people who

despised immigrants and talk of foreigners, the English, white English have

this attitude of foreigners, Johnny Foreigner they say. I don`t want that

Johnny Foreigner here.

And along comes Meghan, what is she? American. Strike one. Two, an actress.

Strike two. Then she`s divorced, married to a Jew, progressive views, all

bad things.

But the mother -- her mother is black. That is it. It`s no way going to

last. She is the equivalent of Yoko Ono on steroids. John Lennon left his

English rose wife for an Asian woman. This is betrayal to the white Aryan

supremacists who love to think themselves so superior.

So, Meghan was on a downward slope from the moment that she entered into

that family.

REID: Yeah, well, you know, Lola, their future queen is also a divorcee

and they`re about to put a crown on her, but they don`t want to give a

title to Archie just because he`s a one black kid they don`t want to give

it to.

But to come back to you for a moment, Lola, they don`t like Johnny

Foreigner but they got Janie (ph) foreigners and put on American people

that basically troll Meghan on Twitter and willing to put them on and use

that for the tabloids to attack her again and so they didn`t have a problem

going outside of the quite to people that don`t cover the royal family to

say if you will attack her we`ll put you on and then use it back in the

tabloids and attack her again.

ADESIOYE: Meghan seems to me to be the scapegoat so there`s something that

Harry alluded to in the interview where Oprah asked him about the

relationship between the royal family and the tabloids and he was saying to

the royal family call them off like get the dogs off the back and the royal

family didn`t want to do that because the relationship is that the royal

family depends on the perception of the public in order to keep themselves

alive. The reality is that the royal family doesn`t need to exist in its

current form and only exists in the current form because people believe in


And so, when people stop believing in it, then actually, there could be in

the future no royal family. And that`s why I think Meghan is so threatening

because, one, she is a threat to the idea of supremacist, racial supremacy,

you know? Country supremacy.

She could destroy the whole idea of what a royal family stand for and I

think that`s what they see and that`s what they`re so afraid of.

REID: And even if she is over here, I`m sorry, y`all, but she will be a

superstar. She and Harry, stars.

Lola Adesioye, Martin Lewis, (INAUDIBLE) about it.

That`s tonight`s REIDOUT.

"ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES" starts right now.




Copyright 2021 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials herein are

protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced,

distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the

prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter

or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the