tv The Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC April 6, 2021 6:00pm-7:00pm PDT
there's no one i'd rather talk to than vaccine effort peter hotez. on this week's episode, he lends his expertise to describe everything from the basic of vaccines to, what are they? to their impact on the world. download it wherever you getture podcast. don't forget to subscribe. that's it for "all in." now "the rachel maddow show." >> here is the just posted headline over at "the new york times" right now. quote, matt gaetz, loyal for years to trump, is said to have sought a blanket pardon, and that's not the kind of pardon you need for your blanket. what this means is he was asking a pardon for himself for things for which he's not yet charged. this is the latest development in a bizarre and stomach
churning story we have been covering for about a week now. gaetz is a republican congressman from florida. as that headline alludes to. he was a staunch supporter of trump. it was first reported "the new york times" that matt gaetz is currently under federal investigation for allegations of alleged sex trafficking of an underage girl. now, this is an investigation that started during the trump administration when bill barr was running the justice department. bill barr, as attorney general, was himself reportedly personally briefed on the matt gaetz investigation on multiple occasions. the federal investigation into congressman gaetz is reportedly examining whether federal campaign funds may have been used to facilitate the child sex trafficking ring, whether drug
use may have been involved. congressman gaetz repeatedly denied the allegations. he said they're all made up. this breaking news in the "times" tonight puts those denials in a different light. here's the lede. quote, representative matt gaetz, republican of florida, was one of president trump's most vocal allies during his term. in the final weeks of trump's turn, congressman gaetz sought something in return. he asked the white house for blanket preem tef pardons for himself and unnamed ally for any crimes they may have committed. "the times" reports it's unclear whether congressman gaetz or the white house knew at the time he was under federal investigation for child sex trafficking when he asked for this pardon, but
"the times" cause note that if he was aware at the time he did not tell the white house when he made the request. congressman gaetz didn't get any such pardon from trump, at least one that we know of. "the times" is reporting that the white house thought that kind of preemptive blanket pardon in the absence of any charges is something that might set a precedent, although that's not the thing they cared about in other scandals. "the times" reports in recent days some trump associates speculated that mr. gaetz's request for a group pardon for him and other members of congress was an attempt to camouflage his own potential exposure, the theory he knew he was in -- and asked for a pardon for himself and lots of other guys, just in case. a pardon is not a trophy.
it's not something you can put on a shelf in your house to prove how much mr. trump likes you. it's a tool to avoid penalty for criminal behavior. it's a weird thing to ask for if you haven't done anything wrong. congressman gaetz through a spokesperson denied he asked for a pardon but again, the "times," which broke this story in the first place now advancing it in a light in a way that does cast a different light on mr. gaetz's repeated denials. we'll stay on the story, we'll let you know more. in the way the gaetz story developed in the past, i'm not putting it out of the realm that this story will develop further in the hour. okay, so we're watching that. here's something else. in the year 2000, the presidential election, you may recall, was closer than close. it took weeks to determine the
outcome, and a fairly scandalous united states supreme court ruling ultimately came down to a few hundred votes in florida and a bunch of votes there not being counted. it is almost impossible to overstate how close we were to president bill clinton being succeeded in the office, in the white house, by democrat al gore instead of republican george w. bush. but because of the contested and whacky outcome, president bush is who we got. there after president george w. bush's republican party did shockingly well in the elections of 2002, after the 9/11 terrorist attack and after he started a war in afghanistan and was gearing up for another in iraq in 2003. 2002, after 9/11 and after starting one war on the way to another, his party does well in the midterms.
2004 he gets re-elected as he ran against john kerry. but in 2006 it was time for another election, the second of the george w. bush era. the party almost always loses seats first contest after a presidential election. it didn't happen after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001. the pendulum in political science common wisdom almost always swings back after you elect a president of one party or the other. that pendulum hadn't had the chance to swing back because of the 9/11 attacks and because of the politics around the wars. even though bush was re-elected in 2004, by the time the second midterm rolled around, not only were they overdue for the pendulum swinging back against them, the george w. bush
administration was absolutely swamp in the scandal by that time. by the time the 2006 midterms were rolling around, they were dragging around the disastrous mishandling of both wars the, torture scandals, the secret prisons js. they had a lot of corruption scandals. the disastrous, monstrous mishandling of katrina, which swamped the city of new orleans, killed 2,000 americans while the government went from complaining about it to botching it further. by the time the 2006 midterms rolled around, the republicans knew they were in trouble. they knew the pendulum had been swinging their way for an artificially long time and that they were due for a massive whiplash swing in the other direction. they knew they had so many scandals and such bad perception from the public that things were going to go badly for them in
2006. they knew they were going to get shellacked. they did. that's when we would get the first ever woman speaker of the house, nancy pelosi, and the at democrats to control the house. that same night, the democrats would take control of the senate. the pendulum really did just swing back in 2006, but everybody knew it was coming. before it happened it wasn't all that hard to see. we knew we were overdue for it. democrats knew it was coming. republicans knew it was coming. in the lead up to the 2006 elections republicans did try to lessen what they knew was going to be to blow there, and one of the most memorable ways they did that is that they tried to specifically to shine up their reputation as best they could with minority voters, particularly with black voters. after the hurricane katrina catastrophe especially, they knew they were facing something approaching like a 100-0 loss
with black voters. they knew they were never going get a majority but knew they had the do something to cut into the margin. summer 2006, knowing what they were heading into, an election season of that year, this a came up with a plan, a way to cut into the democrats' massive advantage with black voters. the republicans in congress and the george w. bush white house in summer of 2006 white house decided they would reauthorize the voting rights act of 1965, and they would do it early, even before provisions of the voting rights act were due to sunset. bush white house and republicans in congress would vote to extend the civil rights era law. the real politic of it was they wanted to do it in plenty of time to get credit for it in the 2006 elections among black voters in particular.
president bush would hold a big bipartisan signing for it. george w. bush even went to the naacp convention that year, which was a bizarre thing to see. he had never been before, but he wanted to brag about the fact that he was signing to voting rights extension. looking back on it now, the politics of it were painfully obvious, painfully craven given everything else the party and bush administration had done at the time, everything they stood for. but it's clear why they were doing it, but they did have this thing, and it was a real thing they wanted to do to try to help themselves at the worst end of their worst margins with the most lopsided demographic they had in terms of voting patterns heading into the 2006 election. the problem they had along the way is that quite a number of their own members of the house didn't want to do it.
they didn't actually want to reauthorize the voting rights act of 1965. there were actually dozens of republicans in the house in 2006, particularly white southern republicans in the house, who didn't like the voting rights act of 1965 and didn't want to extend and it didn't plan on voting for it, even if it was being championed by their own party's president and by the rest of the republicans in congress, and that was going to be embarrassing for the bush white house and republican party, given the voting rights act extension thing was supposed to change their image as republicans and make them look good on this voting rights issue. they hit a real roadblock. on the way to the photo op they hit a roadblock with dozens of house republicans standing in the schoolhouse door saying, no, they weren't going to did it. they didn't like it. they knew the politics around this maybe changed but they
continue make themselves support it. and it was becoming a real problem for the republican party in the summer of 2006. it was at that moment when some surprising cavalry wrote in to the rescue to help shock the republicans into line in congress. it was such a surprising development at the time that reporters covering it didn't know if they had seen anything like it before. they had nothing to compare it to in modern history. here's how npr covered it at the time. >> the first corporation to call for a renewal of the voting rights act is walmart. lee cull pepper is the company's vice president for federal relations. >> walmart is the largest employer of african-american and hispanic americans.
>> walmart regularly battled with lawmakers over unionizing health-care and other issues. its executives met with the congressional black caucus in early 2005. the result. >> the walmart ceo sent a letter to president push urging him to support an extension of the voting rights act. >> the crunch came this summer when conservative lawmakers pushed amendments to weaken the bill. they used the walmart bill and reach out to others. at eli lily, in indianapolis, the spokesman says they wanted to add a voice from the heartland. >> when we lobby we are bobbying for brder health-care issues or
industry. we think it has contributed to monumental changes in american society. >> there was also a letter from the pfizer ceo, writing as chairman of the business round table. that's a group of ceo of some 160 major companies. tom lehner is the group's public policy director. >> our main purpose is to promote economic growth, but one of the fundamental tenets is equal -- in the political process. >> letters came from coca-cola. john lewis of georgia a civil rights veteran says he's never seen anything like this before. >> the word tends to spread fast in minority communities. to see in those@mick publication that several major american
corporations supported the reauthorization of the voting rights act, that gives them a leg up. >> if there's any blowback from the critic of corporation, the critics say they have yet to see it. >> that was 2006. it's so nice to hear congressman john lewis' voice there again. but that kind of odd backwards politics episode, 15 years ago, 2006 -- the republican party unsuccessfully trying to head off a shellacking at the polls, trying to repair their image with black voters, making a big show out of moving early to reauthorize the voting rights act of 1965, they ran into problems with their own members in congress who didn't support the voting rights act, and we saw this very unusual thing at the time, the biggest corporations in the company stepped up. walmart first, but at&t and
pharmaceutical companies. all all the biggest corporations stepped up and stepped into the ring, and helped them get the vote right and helped them get voting rights act done. it was a short victory. they did reauthorize the voting rights act and got their big photo op out of and it tried to help themselves out to no avail. but for voting rights themselves it would only be a few years later in 2013 when a supreme court conservative majority would rip the guts out of the voting rights act and eliminate its protections. it was eviscerated by conservatives in the supreme court in 2013. now republicans all over the country are racing to enact the most aggressive wide range restrictive since the voting
rights blocked the worst of it. now there's no voting rights to speak up to protect voters in all these states, but republicans are now moving to strip their voting rights as fast and far as they can. and so now, once again, 15 years down the line, system of the biggest corporations in the country, once again, some of the same ones that spoke out 15 years ago are speaking up on this issue now. and most of them are very tentative about it at first. now we're starting to see more momentum. but big corporations are saying while they usually only weigh in on things that affect their specific industries, on this, on voting right, just like they said in 2006, they are once again saying it is such a fundamental thing that they want to be recognized as standing against voting rights rollback ♪ they want to stand against the restrictions republicans are putting in the place in the states and increasingly large corporations in increasingly
large numbers are willing to stick their necks out a bit to say so. it's not the first time it happened. it happened in 2006 in certain circumstances. it's not a monolithic response. patgonia, for example, today, the company that makes outdoor gear went beyond criticizing the restrictions. they now said they're going to fund provoting rights advocacy groups in georgia, including the new georgia project and the black voters fund. in texas, meanwhile, corporations like at&t that stood in front of the voting rights extension in 2006, this week at&t made mild pro-voting statement bus haven't take anne stand against states now. at&t and others are facing pressure toe take a more pointed stance to be put their money in
their institutional heft. activists are saying they ought not get credit for saying mild things in favor of voting rights, they should weigh in and tray to stop voting rights restrictions. in dallas, at&t plaza this week is going to see a protest. companies taking a stand -- big business in our country taking a stand in favor of voting rights is not actually a new thing here. republicans had to deal with this in 2006 as well when the politics of the circumstances were a little different. a president of their own party wanted to republican party to at least appear to get over on the voting rights side of things. at the time in 2006 corporate pressure helped republicans to get in line to do that. this year they're not even bothering to pay lip service to the fact that republicans support voting rights.
this year, republicans are uniformly pushing against voting rights, so this year they're not handling it well that big business interest once again are on the voting rights side of things. >> my warning, if you will, to corporate america, is to stay out of the politics. it's not what you're designed for. you get my drift. this is an issue that the big corporations in america -- major league baseball being one of the biggest -- should stay out of. if i were running a major corporation, i would stay out of politics. >> republican senate leader mitch mcconnell pounding his little shell and telling corporate america to stay out of politics. warning them. my warning is to stay out of politics. at least on this. at least stay out of being in favor of voting rights. there is literally no one in american politics who has done
more as an individual to ensure that companies stay in politics. to ensure massive unrestricted corporate involvement in u.s. politics. there's literally nobody who has done more for that cause than mitch mcconnell. it's the one thing he's been devoted to more than anything else in his own career -- his own power and making sure corporations can flood as much money into politics as they want. the last campaign finance reform we had, mccain finegold, when that went to court, what was that called before the supreme court? it was called mcconnell versus federal election commission, as in mitch mcconnell suing to make sure corporations can stay in politics as much as they want. that is what he has built his career on. now that corporations are saying they're in favor of voting rights, now today -- >> my warning if you will, to
corporate america is to stay out of politics. >> yeah, stay out of politics if you're going to be on the side of voting rights. we were willing to have you help with us that in 2006, but now we're on the other side and you better shut up. we're warning you. it does actually matter when corporations with a lot of money and power come out and support voting rights. it matters when she shocked everyone, including john lewis when they did it in 2006. it matters now. republicans are infuriated by corporations taing a stand in georgia. texas appears to be the next big battleground. beto o'rourke joins us live from texas, next. s, next. for sure. seriously? one up the power of liquid, one up the toughest stains. any further questions? uh uh! one up the power of liquid with tide pods ultra oxi. vo: calling all builders, all welders, and roofers.
engineers and electricians. calling all brick masons and boiler makers. steel workers and steam fitters your country is calling you to rebuild america. to create a cleaner, safer, more prosperous future for all. tackling climate change, this is the job of our lifetime. it's time to build back better. let's get to work. look at this human trying to get in shape. you know what he will get?
muscle pain. give up, the couch is calling. i say, it's me, the couch, i'm calling. pain says you can't. advil says you can. it doesn't happen often. everyday people taking on the corporate special interests. and winning. but now, the for the people act stands on the brink of becoming law. ensuring accurate elections. iron-clad ethics rules to crack down on political self-dealing. a ban on dark money. and finally reducing corporate money in our politics. to restore our faith in government. because it's time. for the people to win.
this state. they're trying the achieve in texas what they tried to achieve in georgia. and companies have a choice the make. >> let's make sure that while we still have time, at&t, toyota, frito lay, pepsi -- southwest airlines -- others can add their favorite companies in texas as well. you still have time to do the right thing. as charlie reminded us, when you step up, when we call step up and do the right things we can -- we did it in the bathroom bill, with other voter suppression measures. we can do it now. we still have time. i want these companies to know, if you fail to act, fail to step up, please know that the very hottest places in texas will be reserved for those companies who maintain their neutrality in a moment of the moral crisis like this one. so we're watching you. but we're inviting you in. there's still time to act. please do. >> the very hottest places in
texas will be reserved for those companies to maintain a neutrality in a moment of crisis like this one. joining us now, beto o'rourke, the founder of power by people, a grassroots organization working to motivate voters in texas. thanks for making time tonight. >> thanks for having me on. i really enjoy listening to the start of your show. i didn't know that history about 2006. but it should give us even greater encouragement about the work we're doing in 2021. we still have time to stop this one, and 2006 is a lesson in that. >> 2006, i was thinking about in particular because we're seeing some of the same corporate names pop up, and i thought about it with at&t, having come out and said that they're generically in favor of voting rights but not having taken a role in trying to stop what the republicans are doing in voting rights in texas or anywhere else.
at&t was pretty important as a beg company 15 years ago in 2006 for that national push on voting rights, and again, the politics then were different and everyone's motivations were different buck to the extent this company identified with the issue, shouldn't be new for them to take a strong stand. i feel like some of this is reminding companies who they are, not asking them to become something they're not. >> that's right, and we should also acknowledge that whatever mitch mcconnell says, at&t and other american corporations are very involved in our politics. in fact, since 2018, at&t has given more than $574,000 in contributions to texas governor greg abbott, lieutenant governor dan patrick and the authors of these voter suppression bills some it's not as if they are neutral. they are a party to this effort.
that is until they withdraw contributions, take a public stand -- and maybe -- i learned this from watching your show as well -- follow the lead of somebody like patgonia and fund expanding access to call voters, republicans, democrats and independents can vote and have some say in who will represent them in the course and direction this state and country will take. i don't think that's asking touch from at&t or any of these other companies that we named earlier in the program. >> is it possible that things are too far long in texas to stop it? texas republicans, as far as i can tell, as far as i've read today, they're considering more than 100 bills in the state to restrict voting. there's a republican governor, republican controlled senate and house. one of the bills has already passed the senate. it's on the way to the house. it appears there's no way to expect it won't pass there. the governor is a vocal
supporter. in some ways it feels they've got so much momentum it feels -- >> i was in the state capital and saw folks who had driven in from dallas and el paso, 18 hours away, and folks waited to get their two minutes. it happened more recently, and folks waited until 3:00, 4:00 in the morning to testify. it's that kind of people power that kind of grassroots activism that can put a stop to this as it did to the bathroom bill in 2016 when in concert with big companies who saw their customers in the line of fire and their civil rights being challenged stepped up, stood up, spoke up, and forced the state
legislature, along with the people of texas, to do the right thing and effectively withdraw that bill. we can do this now, but you're right, it's what's happening in texas. it's what happened in georgia. it's what's pending in 41 other state legislatures. this is the most -- since the voting rights act was signed into law by lyndon banes johnson in 1965. i want to make sure beyond justice and the right to vote and participate in our democracy, it comes down to the very lives that our fellow texans lead. what happens when you can't vote in the school board election to your kid's school? how are they going to be represented? if you can't vote on the municipal issue, is your part of town going to get taken care of? when it cops to state issues and the distribution of vaccines, if you can't vote, will you be heard? in a state where the minimum
wage is $7.25 an hour and you're a shift worker making that minimum wage at between or three jobs to make that meet, do you have any hope if you can't effectively participate in deciding who your representative is going to be and whether or not they hear you? this is people's lives. it's the schools their kids go to, the wages they earn. in fact, the texas civil rights project commissioned a study from a texas economist and they find that up through 2025, this will cost the state nearly $15 billion in losses. it will cost tens of thousands of jobs. so lest anyone think this is an abstract fight about democracy, it's about your rights to participate in this democracy, but it's also about what happens to our lives when we can't participate in this democracy some yes, there's still time to fight this and do so successfully, and we've got to take the inspiration from john
lewis and all those who frooed proceeded us to force lbj to do the right thing, it's not going to be easy, but week do it. >> beto o'rourke, former congressman from the state of texas, former presidential candidate, thanks for joining us. i have a feeling the spotlight is going to be on texas. thanks for helping us understand. >> thank you. much more to get to tonight. stay with us.
i always dreamed of having kids of my own. ♪ ♪ now i'm ready for someone to call me mom. at northwestern mutual, our version of financial planning helps you live your dreams today. re-entering data that employees could enter themselves? that's why i get up in the morning! i have a secret method for remembering all my hr passwords. my boss doesn't remember approving my time off. let's just... find that email. the old way of doing business slows everyone down. with paycom, employees enter and manage their own hr data in one easy-to-use software. visit paycom.com for a free demo. ♪♪
it's okay that you don't want to be first: you aren't. second covid vaccine. it's okay to have questions: everyone deserves answers. i'm wary that there isn't enough information. it's okay to be excited, or worried, or both. it's alright for it to take whatever it takes for you to be ready. hi mom, ready for your shot? yes, i've been waiting for this day. we just got what? vaccinated. we just got vaccinated! let's get you there. let's get to immunity.
spent on hair and makeup for the ceo's wife. all things that were paid for by the unwitting members of a nonprofit organization, member who is apparently had no idea that that's the kind of stuff their membership dues were being spent on. last year, the attorney general in the state of new york, letitia james pseudothe national rifle association because the nra is technically a nonprofit, chartered to operate within her jurisdiction in the state of new york. these spending details, the jets and hair and makeup and vacations -- she charges in her suit the people in charge of the nra used the money it collected as a private piggy bank for personal travel. it's one thing to live like that on your own dime to pay for private jets and safaris and
stuff, but if you're spending the money of a nonprofit on that it may well be fraudulent and illegal. so the attorney general of new york sued to dissolve the entire organization, she sued to dissolve the nra for its leaders' financial misconduct. they called the lawsuit baseless, but they also reacted to it in some unexpected ways. given the nature of the allegations, the lavish spending allegations, it was weird that in the immediate wake of this lawsuit brought by james, the nra filed for bankruptcy. that's a weird thing to do when you apparently have 39 thousand thousand dollars to spend on suits for your company's executives. on the same day they filed for bankruptcy, it got even weirder. they told them their bankruptcy
was coming at a time when the nra is in its strongest financial condition in years. again, that's a weird thing to say on the same day you've officially declared bankruptcy in a court of law. why are you telling a court you're totally out of money while at the same timeu telling your supporters, we have never been richer? but the nra asked the court to please allow them to declare bankruptcy. they said their intention was to reincorporate the nra as a new entity, not in the state of new york but in texas, far away from tish james in new york. all that -- the bankruptcy application was not about the organization going bankrupt at all, but instead may have been devised as a way to dodge the lawsuit, to dodge accountability if the new york attorney general who was trying after all to dissolve their entire organization. one neat trick when you file for
bankruptcy is it puts a pause on ongoing litigation against you. that may have been what the nra was banking on here. at a minimum it would delay tish james' lawsuit against them. the "the wall street journal" noted they feel for bankruptcy to slow walk litigation. we don't know for sure that's what the nra was doing, but if that is what the nra was doing, and if a they get caught for trying to do that here, that could get them in even more trouble. the judge that's deciding whether or not the nra will be allowed to declare bankruptcy, they have appointed a trustee, putting in an overseer, an outsider to investigate the financial fraud allegations laid out by tish james and make all financial decisions going forward for the nra. the judge also has the option op just saying no -- dismissing the bankruptcy application by the
nra and that of course would clear the way for tish james to continue her litigation, which, again, seeks to dissolve the organization. the nra's bankruptcy trial started this week in federal bankruptcy court in texas. the entire trial is expected to last about a week. several top nra officials are expected to testify about the alleged spending abuses for the first time ever, including the ceo, wayne la pierre, the man who allegedly spent that money on suits and makeup for his wife and got the stays on the yacht. he was asked about the stays on the yacht today. he asked why he needed to stay on that yacht as part of official nra business, why he accepted that stay on a yacht from a yacht owner who was getting multimillion dollar contracts from the nra at the same time. he said he went and stayed on
the yacht after the sandy hook shooting. he said he thought his own life was in danger as the head of the nra, so he fled to the yacht for safety. he said the yacht was, quote, the one place that i hoped i could feel safe. i remember getting there going, thank god i'm safe. nobody can get me mere here. joining us now is sandy watts. after the sandy hook shooting, ms. watts founded -- she's been following the nra bankruptcy trial closely. thanks for being with us tonight. >> good to see you, too. >> i think i am surprised that the nra's bankruptcy trial i realize bankruptcy court is a kind of arcane thing, but i'm -- it isn't more of a story.
the dissolution, the bankruptcy, and whether it itself is a fraud seems to be a tawdry and consequential thing for this hugely influential special interest group to be tied up in and something that has high stakes for the future of gun reform and the future of the organization. >> hugely high stakes. as you said, i think the nra thought it was a get out of jail free card that they could avoid any kind of accountability from the new york attorney general's office, and ultimately they're finding that this trial is more trouble than they thought it was worth. we're getting every day details about the nra's history of extravagant spending and financial mismanagement. main la pierre is a man who's spent years and millions of dollars saying the only protection from a bad guy and a gun is a good guy with awe gun, and basically he's saying now the only protection is a good
friend with a yacht, right? this is all coming out into the public. tish james has been masterful in laying out how executives have used to nra as a slush fund. they spent millions of dollars on travel. the lawyer said we should expect more cringe worthy. the nra said, yes work started this fire buck look how hard we're trying to put it out. >> from an advocacy perspective obviously you and moms demand action have been putting pressure on this issue relentlessly, trying to make gun reform achievable in individual states at a federal level.
how does the solvency of the nra affect the work you are doing now. the gun reform space and policy space has been so defined by the nra's belligerence and dominance. if they fall apart, if they're literally dissolved or revealed to the public eye as a fraud on their own members here, how does that change the space in which you and your colleagues have been working so hard to get gun safety and gun reform done? >> let's be clear, the nra used to be a power broker and new they're just broken. based on this trial, it's clear they don't care about public safety, public policy, they certainly don't care about their members. they care about power. when they're busy in bankruptcy court, our 6 million supporters are demanding action, demands more than thoughts and prayers wind chill this road trip for background check. our volunteers are going across
the country -- 60 stops in 22 states, covid safe, about 16,000 miles long, and we're telling d.c. -- that's where it will culminate -- that we want our senators to act. this is the perfect time. our movement is stronger than it's ever been and, the nra is weaker than it's ever been. just to put that in perspective -- the last time we had a fight, the nra was a powerhouse. today they have to ask the court the pay tear power bills. the roof is collapsing in and they have to ask if permission to fix it. i truly believe the nra is a paper tiger, and senators should vote their conscience. otherwise it will be at their political peril. the "a" rating is a scarlet
letter. >> shannon watts, appreciate being able to talk to you about this tonight. >> thank you. as i mentioned the nra bankruptcy trial is in federal bankruptcy court in texas. the nra officials who are having to testify at that trial, it's the first time any of had to testify under oath and had to answer publicly for the ways they allegedly ripped off their member to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. this is one of those stories -- i feel like lawsuits and legal cases get covered pretty well in this country. i don't know if it's because it's a bankruptcy court it's not getting covered but this has huge ramifications. shocking. any way, more news ahead. stay with us. nope... charmin ultra soft is so soft you'll have to remind your family they can use less.
officer derek chauvin in the murder of george floyd. the prosecutors are calling on witnesses one after another to talk about how what chauvin did is not what he was trained to do. >> once there was no longer any resistance, and clearly when mr. floyd was no longer responsive and even motionless, to continue to apply that level of force to a person proned out, handcuffed behind their back, that in no way, shape or form is anything that is by policy, is not part of our training and it is certainly not part of our ethics or values. >> today the prosecution called
a minneapolis police officer who led use of force training classes, which officer chauvin took. >> sir, is this an mpd-trained neck restraint? >> no, sir. >> has it ever been? >> a neck restraint? no, sir. >> say, for example, the subject was under control and handcuffed, would this be authorized? >> i would say no. >> one of the defense's strategies in the trial so far has been to argue that the crowd mattered, the crowd that had gathered out of concern for george floyd that day, the crowd that included an off-duty firefighter, an elderly man, a nine-year-old girl. the defense argued that they were so rowdy and threatening that they were a distraction to officer chauvin and drove some of his actions. today two more minneapolis department officials gave testimony that undermined that argument from the defense. >> if we're looking at assessing somebody's medical condition for
the purpose of rendering emergency aid, would that be a big thing or a small thing? >> that would be a big thing. >> if, then, that is contrasted with, say, a 17-year-old filming you with a camera, would that be a big thing, the filming, or a small thing? >> the filming would be a small thing. >> so far the prosecution has called 26 witnesses. ten of those 26 have been law enforcement officials, not including several emts, a 911 dispatcher, a firefighter who witnessed george floyd's death. the trial continues tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. eastern time. watch this space. time. watch this space - as you get older, things just don't work as well as they used to. we saw a commercial for prevagen and we wondered if that might be a good solution. i noticed clarity.
a quick reminder of our top story tonight that just broke as we were getting on the air tonight. the "new york times" furthering their story on congressman matt gaetz, probably the most pro-trump congressman on capitol hill. he is accused of alleged sex trafficking. in the closing days of the trump administration, gaetz actually asked the office privately for a preemptive blanket pardon of himself. this is while an investigation for him of alleged sex trafficking was underway. at the time he asked for the pardon, justice department investigators had begun questioning associates of mr.