tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC June 30, 2021 5:00pm-6:01pm PDT
enriching himself. they believe they found a pattern. it's not just weisselberg, it's the company acting this way. they allowed them to seek charges for falsifying documents, if they are charging he is covering up what the trump organization did. the inclusion of the trump organization as a corporate defendant to me signals they think there's a pattern here. >> david, the best reporter on this issue, thank you. tonight on "all in," -- >> we will be judged by future generations as to how we value our democracy. >> as republicans keep trying to find non-existence evidence for a stolen election, how a ballot debacle in new york and a fraud in north carolina disproves their whole point. tonight, congressman clyburn on the need for federal protections of american democracy. i think everyone in this country has been looking for accountability, whether it's on
a federal or state level. i'm very happy that there's finally accountability and justice. >> news that criminal charges against trump's business and his main money man could be coming tomorrow. how exactly is bill cosby home free tonight? after a state supreme court vacated his sexual assault conviction. lastly, why it's so pointless to compromise the republicans over doing something about climate change. "all in" starts right now. good evening from new york. as we came on air, we are getting breaking news. "the washington post" reporting that a new york grand jury has, as was expected, returned indictments of allen weisselberg and the trump organization itself. we will talk to folks about that just ahead as we check that out. for months and months, a lot of
our fellow americans, millions of them, have been inundated with ceaseless, destructive, toxic propaganda from donald trump, chief among them, of election fraud and conspiracyco. it led to the enterprises we have seen across the country, most notenotably, the audit in arizona. all of that has had the intended affect. most alarming is the number at the bottom, 46% of republicans think state legislatures should override their state's popular vote. today, we have an example in the news of an election administration screwup in the bluest of blue areas. in the democratic primary, the very democratic city of new york city, involving the mayoral race. the board of elections in new york city, which oversees
elections, is one of the most notoriously incompetent election administration units in the country. in 2013, the city's department of investigation released a 72 page report on the board of elections detailing incompetence. in 2016, in the midst of the democratic presidential primary, a member of the board mistakenly removed 100,000 voters from the brooklyn voter rolls. just last fall, "the new york times" did a piece on their incompetence and highlighted how it is made up of a bunch of cronies. the official is the 80-year-old mother of a former congressman. the director of election day operations is a friend of manhattan's republican chairwoman. and the administrative manager is the wife of a city council member. that's a snapshot of what you need to know about the new york city board of elections.
on june 22, new york city had a mayoral primary. they used rank choice voting, for the first time. each voter ranks their top five choices. it's not nuclear physics, but it can be complex. after the polls closed, eric adams, former nypd officer, he has been on the show, was shown to have a significant lead after counting the first place votes cast in person that night. then yesterday, the board of elections released results showing another candidate named catherine garcia had almost all but closed the gap on adams, once everyone's preferences had been tabulated. close race. we will see what happens. a few hours after releasing the preliminary results, the board of elections in new york city sent out this very weird tweet. i will quote it. we are aware there is discrepancy in the unofficial
rank choice voting round by round elimination report. we are working with our technical staff to identify where the discrepancy occurred. have patience. okay. that's a weird tweet. i don't understand it. i do this for a living. around 10:30 last night, they admitted, whoops, 135,000 dummy test votes had been left in a computer system they used to test the vote tabulation and they were still there. our bad. the board announced the new results with the non-fake votes in there, which are very similar. they still need to count absentee ballots. adams and garcia received the same share of the vote right down to the decimal point with 135,000 test ballots and without the 135,000. both have adams 51.1% and garcia
48.9%. the roller coaster ride is inexcusable. this is the kind of thing that damages people's trust in elections at a time when we cannot afford that. everyone on the board should be fired, i think, for this. it's that bad. they should have been fired long ago. it's the kind of screwup that haunts the imagination of the conspiracy theorists. there is kind of a weird silver lining. it didn't hide anywhere, this error. it was discovered in a matter of minutes by people on twitter. that's because any irregularities will out themselves. i really believe this. you can't pull it off at scale without getting caught. that's one of the big lessons here. it's not just for the new york city board of elections which displayed one of the most astoundingly incompetent
displays of vote counting we have seen, but the only actual tangible example of systematic voter fraud being undertaken by a campaign that tipped the scales of an election, which was back in 2018 in north carolina. it started out with mark harris appearing to defeat democrat daan mccreedy by less than 1,000 votes out of more than 280,000 cast. people started looking at the results. they didn't make sense. especially when it came to mail-in ballots. in every other county, mail-in absentee ballots favored the democrat by at least 16 points. in the other county, harris won by 24 points. in all but one of the districts, the democrat won mail-in ballots but in one county, he lost by a whopping 24 points? that's weird. it turns out, that's because harris worked with a guy, a
longtime fixture of politics, who it turned out paid folks to go door to door to collect unfinished absentee ballots, bring them to him so he could fill them out. >> tell people about certain candidates? >> he said he was working. >> she never discarded ballots or saw who people were voting for. but after picking them up, she didn't mail them. she gave them this mr. dallas. did all the people who voted, did their votes count? >> i guess. i don't know. after i dropped them off. >> you don't know whether they were sent to the elections office? >> i don't. no. i don't know. i don't know what they do. >> eventually, they were arrested on charges of conspiracy and illegal ballot handling. the reason was that the statistical fingerprint was
right there in the open. what i want to convince you of, this is partly why the nonsense about voting fraud, not just from the donald trumps of the world, the election was stolen, but mitch mcconnell, we need voter integrity, is that vote are fraud on any scale big enough to matter will be big enough to be caught. that's a logical certainty. big enough to matter means it will be big enough to get caught. those are the basic things you have to understand of an election administration. it's why the paranoid uncertainty republicans have been whipping up since the back in the days of acorn stole the election for obama, which john mccain flirted with, they are solutions in search of a problem. republicans are trying to create the image of some vast crime operating just outside of our view. here is the thing. we see and know what fraud or an electoral screwup looks like.
it was a big smoking fire in north carolina that was caught. the major electoral screwup in new york city was caught. guess what? they were in our view. there's some ways in which the patchwork of election laws in this country helps. there are local officials who stepped up to the plate in 2020 when our election was tested by a president who wanted to steal it. those officials withstood the pressure. some didn't. ultimately, we do need some national standards. a basic standard, basic things people expect, when those votes are counted. a set of national standards like proposed in the voting rights legislation that democrats are trying to pass called the for the people act. those standards are sort of necessary and crucial to a better version of the american democratic project. it's why republicans who are so intent on casting aspersion on the integrity of elections and
pursuing audits, when there is fraud, it's caught pretty quick. new york board of elections caught it in hours. the arizona audit has been going on for 68 days. what are they doing? they would have known by now if something was amiss. at the end of the day, it c it down to the core by which we elect our leaders. it's precisely the fight that republicans are so dead set against, it's why it's so central to what this moment is for the democratic party and for our democracy as a whole. congressman clyburn, a democrat from south carolina, is the house majority whip. the senate needs to get rid of the filibuster, to pass the sweeping votes rights bill. he joins me now. where are things to your mind on this core question before
congress about national democratic access and democratic standards? >> thank you very much for having me, chris. i think we're at a crossroads on that. i have been arguing for some time that our democracy is at peril. all you got to do is look at the vote today, only two republicans voted to get to the bottom of what happened on january 6 and why it happened. only two republicans. that just cannot be. we need to know why there was this insurrection on january 6. who was behind it? who financed it? exactly what it was all about. that's why we are at peril. because that's a bipartisan issue. there's nothing partisan about trying to find out who is trying
to overthrow our government. who is trying to overturn elections? these things are very, very important to find out if we are going to do what's necessary to preserve the integrity of this great democracy. i've been warning we need to look to history. no matter how things may look, we have a democracy that is being tested in a way that it has never been tested before. >> you noted the roll call vote today. you noted only two republicans, kinzinger and liz cheney to vote in favor. what does it say to you that it seems every vote that comes up, there are fewer republicans willing to cross party lines. when you look back to a majority of republicans voted in the
house not to seat the electors. then the impeachment, then you had double digits of republicans, if i'm recalling correctly, willing to impeach the president. now we are down to a committee and we're down to two republicans. the further we get away from it, the worse those vote tallies get on their side. >> well, often the further you get away from any issue, it lessens the impact. if you remember, the day after the insurrection, you remember what kevin mccarthy said on the floor? do you remember what mitch mcconnell said? these people were ready to lay the blame right where they thought it needed to be. that is on donald trump. then a few days later, their stories changed. it changed more today. now mitch mcconnell is saying, we don't need to do anything.
we don't need to find out what happened. we don't need to do anything about voting. the further you get away, the more happy they are to think the danger has passed. but it has not passed. it is there in our future. i would say to the american people, it's time for them to demand that their elected officials do the things that are necessary to preserve the integrity of this great democracy, because it is at peril. >> final question for you is on another vote that regards insurrection and regards the monuments and statues of traitors to the united states that are in the united states capitol to this day. 67 republicans voted, including kevin mccarthy, with democrats. everyone votes to support the removal of the statutes. but a majority of republicans
stood against it. what is your read from that vote? >> my read is that there's been a flip in the country. mccarthy went on the floor and talked about the democrats of old who tried to conserve slavery and second class citizenship for people of color. those democrats reformed themselves. back in 1948, they started making the move to change this country. it was those democrats who did not want to make that move, they left the party. guess where they went. they went to the republican party. strom was one of them. in 1964, over the civil rights act, he left the party. many of them became republicans. my parents were republicans. they got chased out of the
republican party. those democrats took over the republican party. that's who is perpetuating this thing today. the republicans, many of whom used to be democrats, have decided they have a safe haven in the republican party. john c. calhoon has a statue here. he wasn't fighting to preserve the confederacy. he died ten years -- more than ten years before the civil war broke out. he is here because he fought to preserve slavery. that's what made him a big guy in the minds of many south carolinians. now, yale university from which he graduated, changed -- took his name off the college up there. clemson university, he helped to found, they have decided to take his name off the honors college.
charleston, where he is buried, took his statue down. but yet the state of south carolina keeps his statue up here. we here in the congress are going to do what's necessary to put that in the dust bin of history. >> james c. calhoon, one of the great villains of american history. congressman clyburn, thank you for making time tonight. i appreciate it. >> thank you for having me. like i said at the top of the show, we have breaking news. "the washington post" reporting that the new york grand jury returned criminal indictments against donald trump's company and allen weisselberg. and allen weisselberg. ry, rollerball design. because with the right pain reliever... life opens up. aleve it, and see what's possible.
♪ it's grilled cheese time. ♪ ♪ yeah, it's time for grilled cheese. ♪ ♪ after we make grilled cheese, ♪ ♪ then we're eating grilled cheese. ♪ ♪ because it's time. ♪ ♪ yeah. ♪ ♪ time for grilled cheese. ♪ ♪ ♪ look, if your wireless carrier was a guy ♪ yeah. ♪ you'd leave him tomorrow. not very flexible. not great at saving. you deserve better... xfinity mobile. now they have unlimited for just $30 a month... $30. and they're number one in customer satisfaction. his number... delete it. i'm deleting it. so, break free from the big three. xfinity internet customers, switch to xfinity mobile and get unlimited with 5g included for $30 on the nations fastest, most reliable network.
breaking news, just moments ago from "the washington post," a manhattan grand jury filed criminal indictments against the trump organization and his chief financial officer allen weisselberg. the indictments came down tonight but will remain sealed until tomorrow afternoon leaving us in the dark about the specific charges until then. they are expected to be focused on tax-related crimes. weisselberg is expected to surrender at the manhattan district attorney's office tomorrow morning. the trump organization, the company itself, will be
arraigned, represented by a lawyer. these are the first charges resulting from the nearly three-year investigation into donald trump and his businesses. trump is not expected to be charged with any crimes at this time. the charges against his business will exacerbate his legal issues. charges against weisselberg could put pressure on him to flip against his boss. david, what can you tell us? >> well, tomorrow, as you said, we will learn more about the evidence they have. we anticipate the charges -- two things, we anticipate they will relate to taxes that should have been paid on payments, benefits to trump organization executives. this will not just be one or two missed tax payments. this is alleged as a conspiracy or something that happened over a long period of time. we don't believe this to be the end of the case. i think this will be the first
charges, but i don't think we are seeing the end. we are seeing the beginning in the hopes that weisselberg will flip. >> weisselberg has been the key this time. the question was, we knew investigators were looking around weisselberg. we know in the past investigators looked to michael cohen. initially, he had not flipped. he had been -- had a search warrant. he had been charged. then he ended up striking a deal for testimony in exchange for leniency. clearly, that's the number one fear for donald trump or people in his orbit. >> that's right. michael cohen, as you said, he had a huge amount of other liability that didn't have do much with his work with donald trump. had a whole entanglement involving loans in new york city that was part of the pressure to flip. he thought he might spend more than ten years in prison and
pleaded guilty and testified against trump. we will see tomorrow what kind of sentence is facing weisselberg. is he talking about an offense that gets off with a fine? is he looking at years at prison? will he felt the pressure michael cohen felt? it's hard to evaluate until you know what's going to happen with weisselberg. it's hard to know what's going to happen with him until you see what he is facing tomorrow. >> the arraignment -- again, it's a strange encounter. the legal fiction or legal entity of the corporation and its arraignment. the corporation cannot march into court. it highlights how relatively rare criminal charges are against a business enterprise or corporation. what do we know about channel of charges? >> as you said, the trump organization will be represented by a lawyer who will probably enter a not guilty plea.
it will be interesting to see what they charge. the trump organization has more than 500 llcs. it's created to be this opaque nest of llcs that own pieces of each other reporting back up to trump. i will be interested to see which they charge. you could -- they are not common but when they happen, they often end in fines for the companies that have been charged. there's also collateral damage or there could be if it makes banks, lenders, people who have contracts with the trump organization, l hesitant to do business with them. >> there's speculation about automatic triggering in business relationships that may be affected by an indictment. i appreciate that. thank you, david. >> thank you. i want to turn to the staff
writer on "the wall street journal" who has been covering the investigation. she reported these charges were expected. she's a former new york city assistant district attorney. a lot of expertise. you had a detail, if i'm not mistaken -- i may be wrong -- about -- i think there was a line about real estate valuations in your story as possibly amongst the charges. i wonder what your reporting suggested about the portfolio of charges that are possible. >> as dave said, that's a question a lot of people are asking. we're not going to know what the charges are until tomorrow. what we do know at this point is that the charges are likely to involve allegations the trump organization and weisselberg evaded taxes. they have been looking into perks by the trump organization, including cars and private school tuition and apartments.
>> all of those obvusly are the kinds of things that if you give someone have to be reported in both directions as income. it's sort of an obvious hard and fast rule. that seems to be the issue they were -- investigators were looking at. >> yes. that does seem to be something that investigators were looking at. tomorrow, we will see what the final charges are. it will be a big day. it's the first criminal charges stemming from a multi-year investigation into the former president and his company. >> what should we conclude about the status of this grand jury? i found this investigatory grand jury an institution i don't feel like i have a great understanding of. we know that they have been impanelled for this. do they keep going? >> with special grand juries, they sit for a longer term.
it can continue -- you can ask for them to be continued if you need it longer. at this point, we do expect the district attorney's office will continue to pursue the broader investigation into financial crimes by the trump organization and its officers. >> the manhattan district attorney office, obviously, is a very high profile place. they have a lot of high profile cases. one has to imagine that there's never been a higher stakes or more pressure or attention on a single case that this office has ever brought in history. it's hard to think of an analog. >> it's a high profile, high stakes case. it's been going on for a very long time. we also know that at this point the district attorney's office has been trying to get allen weisselberg to cooperate. he refused up to this point. tomorrow might change things.
a felony indictment and the possibility of a prison sentence could change the game and level the playing field and perhaps make him more willing to cooperate. >> thanks for making time for us. >> thank you for having me. i want to bring in david henderson, a former prosecutor, and katie fang, a trial attorney. both join me now. this was not unexpected but it's a big deal for a former president's business to be charged, the cfo to be charged. your reaction, katie? >> happy to see these indictments. it opens the door to further co-defendants or further indictments to be released. i think it's a critical move to start with allen weisselberg.
it's equally important they started with the trump organization. as you noted, a company being indicted is rare. a company requires humans to operate it. those humans involve allen weisselberg, donald trump and trump family members. it's good to know the leak we heard that indictments were imminent came to pass. we did not expect this to be kind of scuttlebutt in terms of innuendo. we are happy to see that charges have been brought. i'm interested to see the unsealed indictments tomorrow. we don't know what the charges are. i will be interested to see what are the stakes that are now being advanced against the trump organization and allen weisselberg. >> you know, david, it's been interesting to watch the development of the reporting on this story. one thing i noticed is, things will be sourced anonymously and trump's lawyers will go on the record to confirm the reports. it seems clear -- this is not
inside information. just me as an astute reader, that they are the source of the first anonymous scoop. i wonder what you think the defense's strategy here is from a pr perspective. i think they have done a good job of getting all of us to expect this so that the bombshell moment in which the next -- the last president of the united states' organization is indicted feels like it's a thing we knew was coming. >> that's right. the defense is aware of a bigger question that we will not have a clue about how it will be answered until tomorrow. there's a common thread that ties this case together with the case we're going to discuss next. that is the defense knows prosecutors are like any other trial lawyers. they don't like to lose. they especially don't like to loose high profile cases. in that context, they would not
be coming forward with these indictmens if they didn't have enough. that's why these indictments tomorrow beg the question, do you have enough to make weisselberg flip? he knows where all the bodies are buried. they will be calm until they know the answer to that. that's what we should be anxious to find out tomorrow. >> katie, what happens to a corporation that's indicted? a person who is indicted has to show up and there can be a question about bail or whether they are released. corporation, none of the materiality applies. what. >> you have somebody who is the corporate representative. you will have a lawyer and/or a corporate representative who will be there with a lawyer tomorrow to be able to enter a plea of not guilty. what's going to happen is the same process. there's going to be the
opportunity for that plea to be entered. the criminal process of discovery and the exchange of the information and evidence in this case is because it's a company that's been indicted, the company actually is representative of the people, the employees and the policies that were going on there. like i said, the company didn't make decisions on its own. there were people that were not only figureheads but people driving the bus on a daily basis. it's people like allen weisselberg and the children that are going to be collateral damage. that's the incentive to give someone like allen weisselberg. it's not just his own hide, it's the hide of your children as well. >> what are those conversations like with someone in that situation that weisselberg appears he will find himself in
tomorrow? >> it depends who is having the conversation. it's curious to see who represents him. is it a lawyer connected to the trump organization? is there enough to drive a wedge between the two and force him to get his own attorney? often what happens, for a successful defense of individuals in these positions, is whether or not you can get them to level with their point of view enough to realize that it's wise to acknowledge when they simply got you and you do that in a way that's going to lead to you getting the best resolution in court. that's not easy to do. we have seen public failures of lawyers who couldn't pull it off. that's what the conversations entail. >> i want to -- since i have you here, i want to ask about another huge piece of legal news today. it took a lot of people by surprise. i will confess that i did not -- i was not awaiting or anticipating this. news that the supreme court of the state of pennsylvania has
vacated the conviction of bill cosby who was convicted for sexual assault. cosby has maintained his innocence. 60 women came forward to accuse cosby of sexual assault. the issue in the majority opinion of the pennsylvania supreme court today was they contended that a decision not to prosecute cosby back in i believe 2004 by the then district attorney in montgomery county, in exchange for civil testimony, was essentially a kind of immunity that had been granted. that civil testimony being entered into the prosecution of cosby violated his right against self-incrimination. i think i have that right. what do you make of that reasoning? what is your reaction to the
news? >> i read the 79-page opinion, chris. the analysis is flawed. i have respect for judges and justices, but it's wrong. let me tell you why. the deal that was never papered -- there's no document anybody can say was the deal reached between the then d.a. who was one of donald trump's impeachment attorneys, by the way, then the d.a. allegedly entered into some type of negotiation with andrea's lawyers and bill cosby's criminal attorneys to be able to agree to not prosecute bill cosby in exchange for a civil suit to proceed against bill cosby and then he could testify without fear of any type of self-incrimination. time-out. there's no written document. let me tell you why this is so wrong. you had trial court on two separate occasions find that this did not violate bill cosby's due process. you had an appellate court say it was the right decision. the reason why the appellate courts get it wrong is the
following. the appellate courts look at a cold record. they get the benefit of a transcript. these trial judges, they can assess the credibility of the witnesses. the lawyers for andrea testified. they found -- this trial court judge found that bruce's edibility was equivocal at best, i think was the language used. andr andrea's lawyers denied that they negotiated this. if there was never an agreement, then how you can have a violation? it's not the right result. it's not the right result on the law. it's not the right result in terms of public policy. it's the wrong decision that was made. >> the footage is bill cosby released today. he is home now, a free man as of now. the case that i have seen -- well, the argument laid out in the dissent in this case is --
goes along the lines of katie. the picture that is painted, as i can best understand it, is that castor when he is a district attorney doesn't want to charge cosby or decides not to but recognizes later that it was -- it looked bad and retroactively constructs a story about how that was actually done to get his participation in this civil suit and to katie as point, how much do you think it matters that there's no record of the supposed deal that at issue? >> chris, a degree with -- i agree with everything katie said. there's a bigger point that needs to be made clear based on that opinion. if you take castor at his word, what he is saying is he allowed cosby to reach an agreement that allowed him to pay his way out of being prosecuted. the deal could have never been
reached if cosby wasn't rich. which should be a problem for everyone. let's take in context what the supreme court said. what they are saying is that if a prosecutor makes a public statement he won't move forward, that's the equivalent of a deal for immunity that bars subsequent people who hold the same office. let's look at a specific case that puts this in context. arbery had his case swept under the rugby the prosecuting authority who refused to move forward. a subsequent prosecutor said that was wrong. i'm going to make this right. under today's ruling, that second prosecutor would not have been allowed to prosecute his killers for murder, which works an injustice as we have seen here. >> the point here is that castor puts out a press release, the only written record -- we are talking about lawyers who paper everything. that's what they do. the only written record is this
press release which i think the prosecutors and others have argued essentially is a representation of an act of prosecutorial discretion. the question is, does that bind future offices? is an act of discretion some ironclad deal which cannot be taken back by future prosecutors? the question is, was the mistake on the part of prosecutors here entering that civil testimony even if they got the trial judge to basically say it was okay? >> no. because he could have still invoked his fifth amendment right. he didn't. he gave completely -- he claimed it was consensual contact. he gave exculpatory statements to law enforcement. the pennsylvania supreme court says bill cosby was induced and he relied upon this press
release as the reason why he testified. we don't have any evidence of that. i think that's where this is so wrong. all of the case says is when a prosecutor makes a plea bargain with a defendant, it violates due process rights if the defendant relies upon that which is promised by the prosecutor. who was the promise? because you exercised discretion and you don't prosecute bill cosby doesn't mean i'm guaranteeing you immunity. there's no evidence. i'm troubled by this decision. >> david and katie, thanks for joining me. still ahead, why is the governor of south dakota deploying members of the military at the behest of a gop mega donor? that story is next.
it's the lowest prices of the season on the sleep number 360 smart bed. it's the most comfortable, dually-adjustable, foot-warming, temperature-balancing proven quality night sleep we've ever made. the new queen sleep number 360 c2 smart bed is only $899. plus free premium delivery when you add a base. ends monday.
when joe biden took the oath of office and was sworn in. since that day, starting in day one, it has been clear to everyone, joe biden had one key primary job, to suppress the coronavirus. he ramped up mass vaccinations, 160 million adults fully vaccinated. we are close to the goals. over 148 million adults are fully vaccinated. 66.5% of adults have received at least one shot. we are now at a perilous moment. the delta variant is spreading. there's still an expectation the buck stops with the president. it's the biden administration's job to protect people. but also governance is collaborative. particularly in a system like ours with 50 individual states. the response to this pandemic should about an all hands on deck situation, especially now
at this key moment with this new threatening variant and the need to get as many people vaccinated as possible. a huge part of the governing structure of america is basically checked out. instead of actually governing, doing this very important thing, a lot of republicans are busy performing, auditions, hoping to rise in the party ranks. look at what the governor of south dakota and the governor in texas is doing. abbott started lifting restrictions in april of 2020. now, vaccinations in texas are not good. they are lagging. just 48% of people receiving at least one shot. that's not good enough. that's a bad number. it's as bad as it gets for a big state. california and new york and florida are way ahead. because of the low vaccination rate, texas is ripe for an outbreak. instead of focusing on that, the
governor was busy making an appearance with donald trump, visiting the southern border to visit the unfinished wall. there's the south dakota governor who has her eye on the republican presidential nomination. she made her name as the i don't care about covid governor. last summer in the midst of the pandemic, she held a huge rally. she held the sturgis rally. it kicked off an outbreak. for a time, her state had one of the highest case and death rates in the country. just like texas, south carolina's vaccination rate is low. 50% of residents receiving at least one dose. not good enough. it will get people killed to not get those numbers higher. she's more concerned with not being left out of donald trump and governor abbott's fun at the
border. can i get in? she's deploying national guard troops from south dakota to texas at abbott's request, get this, funded by a private donation from a billionaire republican donor who has donated overdonor, who donated half a million dollars to donald trump. i did not even know, i will confess, it was possible or legal to privately fund the movement of american troops. but of course this makes sense when you think about the different prisms through which governing is evaluated. we understand that joe biden's job is to get the country running again, to keep people safe and healthy. and republicans understand their job is to keep feeding nonsense to a base with an insatiable appetite for it. appetite for it.
replace old pipes? i can do that. install energy-efficient windows? i can do that. build an electric car? i can do that. weld the tower of a wind turbine? modernize the grid? install 10,000 solar panels? do what i've been doing my whole life? rebuild the country and protect america against climate change? we can do that.
♪ it's grilled cheese time. ♪ ♪ yeah, it's time for grilled cheese. ♪ ♪ after we make grilled cheese, ♪ ♪ then we're eating grilled cheese. ♪ ♪ because it's time. ♪ ♪ yeah. ♪ ♪ time for grilled cheese. ♪ -great idea. [gasps] look at the little cutie. -he's coming for a visit. -hi. [chuckles] aww! oh! he's leaving! -nice work, guys! -introducing togo's new cheese steak melt, featuring fresh artisan bread, layered with tender seasoned steak, sautéed mushrooms, roasted red peppers, and smothered with melty american cheese. the new cheese steak melt, now at togo's.
protested outside the white house. one of their main grievances is something i was discussing with white house communications director kate betting field last night. >> you tell me there is not going to be the votes, then passing the bipartisan vote itself is bad because it takes away the possibility of that important thing. if you're choosing between them, that's not good. >> president biden has been very clear that he's going to continue to fight for his priorities. he has said of course he stands behind this deal that he was able to strike, which by the way, is a preponderanceular deal. so there is -- there are important pieces of this deal and i think selling it short as it feels like maybe you are trying to do is missing the important pieces that will make a difference in people's lives. >> oh. i mean, i'm just a cable news host. it's the planet and how much carbon it can take in the atmosphere, the fact that we
have hard targets we have to hit. plans and priorities are great. there is very little -- there is lots of good stuff in this deal. if we don't hit the targets, we don't hit the targets and we have been not hitting the targets for 30 years, so i hope that turns around. the vast majority of the critical climate investments in regulation in the initial white house jobs plan proposal including electric vehicles to green buildings to the first of its kind to a national clean energy standard, they have been left out of the deal. that's why a growing number of democrats in the house and the senate are saying if this is the only legislation on the table, they're going to vote against it. unless there is a verifiable mechanism to make sure the full package is also passed by reconciliation. joining me now is the spokesperson or progressive democrats, spoken out against the bipartisan infrastructure deal. let me take the opposite side in this since i was -- since i was
pressing from the other direction. i think the argument you would make if you were the white house is basically like, look, we need 50 votes in the senate. we don't have 50 votes in the senate for the reconciliation american jobs plan that we proposed and want. so we got to take what we can get. right? >> well, i would say look at the past week. 230 americans have died in the pacific northwest from the heat waves. and i think this is the last shot this country has to deal with the climate crisis that today millions of americans and billions of people across the globe are dealing with. what people are saying on the hill is that this so-called bipartisan package might not have the votes to house in the house and senate. people aren't calling it the bipartisan plan anymore, at least progressive democrats. they're calling it the romney exxon plan because exxon mobile is very happy about this plan. it was just reported today that
exxon has been secretly lobbying this group of senators who are supporting the plan, moderates on both sides. and exxon is doing whatever it can to make sure the package is, one, does the least amount of possible to reign in exxon and deal with the climate crisis and, two, make the bill unpopular. what they're doing right now is not his jobs plan. what was really great where the biden administration defined bipartisanship as what is popular with independent voters, not just politicians like mitt romney. i think that's what voters are hoping for today. >> you know, the thing that i have been really focussed on is the clean energy standard, and it's what exxon is focussed on and what a lot of fossil fuel companies are focussed on. in the package there is huge investments. but outside of dollars and cents, like a national clean
energy standard which is to every one of the 50 states you have these targets that you have to hit. here is the standard. go out and hit it. without that, we can't hit the targets. today there were some promising news. the white house signals the standard push would be in budget reconciliation. how much do you think this stuff is in flux from where the folks you are talking with stand? >> people are following the news just like you are. it's critical. but 30 states already passed it. it is a common sense proposal that's a moderate proposal. we should have it. it should be included in the plan. but there should be a plan for transportation. and currently the manshin-romney plan has reduced the investment in electric vehicles by 90%. it's also reduced the amount of money going into clean up for lead pipes by half. so if you are not going to take this opportunity to make a down payment on the single biggest crisis facing american families
and families across the globe and grow the economy and do the popular things that you campaigned on, i don't know how you are going to find the votes with democrats in the house for the senate for this. >> yeah. and a game theory standpoint in terms of the legislative tactics here, i think it matters where they think they can find the votes. right now we have people, you know, climate democrats saying we won't vote for this. that changes the calculation. thank you so much for coming on tonight. >> thank you. that is "all in" for this evening. the rachel maddow show begins now. >> good evening, chris. thank you, my friend. thanks at home for joining us this hour. in 1845, frederick doug loss, the great american abolitionist, published the first of what would become three auto bio graphical accounts of his life. the first one was called "narrative of the life of frederick douglas,