tv The Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC June 30, 2021 6:00pm-7:00pm PDT
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, an american
slave." he is of course one of the greatest americans of all time. his auto biographies about life as a slave and his struggle to become free, in addition to everything else he did in his life, those written works are some of the most influential written american accounts of anything on any subject. in narrative of the life, which is the most widely read of the three of his three autobio graphical accounts but also in the subsequent ones he wrote as well including the next one "by bondage and my freedom," one of the most harrowing things he describes about his life is a year-long period where the man who owned him as a slave decided that young frederick douglas was encourageable. he decided that frederick douglas needed, in effect, to be tamed, to be broken.
and so he shipped frederick douglas off to a man literally known as a slave breaker. the slave breaker was named edward covey, c-o-v-e-y. this is part of how frederick douglas describes him. he says, quote, i have now lived with him, meaning his slave owner, nearly nine months, and he had given me a number of severe whippings, without any visible improvement in my character or any conduct. now he was resolved to put me out as he said, quote, to be broken. there was in the bay side a man named edward covey, who enjoyed the kpe crated reputation of being a first rate hand at breaking young negroes. breaking. frederick douglas then goes on in chapter after chapter after chapter in this auto biography. look at this. the experience.
you know, covey's manner of proceeding to whip. chapter after chapter after chapter he describes this experience, the way that edward covey tortured him and beat him nearly to death and worked him nearly to death all the try to destroy frederick douglas 'spirit, to turn him into a docile slave who would work out question where he would then be returned to his owner. because douglas is so capable and brilliant, his own recounting of what happened to him in that period of his life, what happened to him when his slave owner sent him to edward covey, what happened to him at edward covey's hands, what happened to him when he stayed at his farm, because frederick douglas is such a luminous, important, brilliant, inspiring, incredible figure, unparalleled
figure in american history, because of what we know he is capable of, because of what we know what his mind was capable of and what he did for his country in his life, when he recounts what happened to him at the hands of edward covey, it is the most disspiriting and december lit and miserable thing that douglas writes about. he said, i shall never be able to narrate the mental experience through which it was my lot to pass during my stay. i was completely wrecked, changed and bewildered, goated almost to madness at one time and at another reconciling myself to my wretched condition. i suffered bodily as well as mentally, he says. the overwork and brutal chastises of which i was the victim, combined with that ever gnawing and soul devouring thought, i am a slave, a slave for life, it rendered me a living embodiment of mental and
physical wretchedness. that was frederick douglas' account of his own life in that lowest period in his own life. and that written account did more than any other to galvanize the american abolitionist movement to bring an end to slavery. of course it was not fiction. it really happened and it happened as frederick douglas said it did and edward covey was a real person who operated a slave breaking operation at his farm to which frederick douglas was sent. now, if you go back to that initial description, douglas describes covey's farm as being on the bay side. what he meant by that is that the farm was on the far side of chesapeake bay, the far side of chesapeake bay from the mainland of maryland. edward covey's farm, his slave breaking operation which he tortured frederick douglas and countless others was this house.
and its surrounding farmland on the eastern farmland. the farm and the house at the farm itself had a name, a fitting name. it was called mount misery. about 15 years ago now, a literature professor wrote a very thoughtful piece in the baltimore sun newspaper suggesting a new future for mount misery, suggesting that the united states of america should consider buying mount misery to make it a commemorative site. he argued, would not the most fitting outcome for mount misery be as a monument or museum wherein a key moment from the country's past can find a rightful place in the country's history. the fight between slave and slave breaker that took place there is emblematic of two of the themes of american history, the horrors of legally sanctioned racial violence and
also the nobility of the struggle against it. and then here's actually the kicker from that piece. the professor says, quote, preserving mount misery as a public site of contemplation from democracy and december patism are given a human face also would help keep saint michael's from being merely a resort for the wealthy. a resort for the wealthy? check this out. the occasion for that call that well-argued piece in the baltimore sun that mount misery should be purchased and preserved by this country against saves in great numbers but specifically against one of the greatest americans of all time, the key role that the torture in that house played in turning on our american conscious to eventually overthrow slavery, the occasion for that call to preserve mount
misery as a monument to the hell that happened there, the reason the baltimore sun published that just less than 15 years ago now was this revelation that was published in "the new york times" exactly 15 years ago today. on june 30th, 2006, it's titles weekends with the president's men. it is kind of a kicky sidebar piece in "the new york times" that was published in the summer of 2006. and that piece revealed that that site on the eastern shore of maryland, mount misery, that house, that farm had actually been recently purchased and was now being lived in as a private home. can you imagine, right? first of all, the house is still called mount misery today. that's still the name by which it is known. who would want to live in a place called mount misery? but then you get to the reason that it's called mount misery, right? it was the home, the same
building standing there since 1804. frederick douglas was tortured there in 1833 and 1834. whether or not you think that place should be purchased by this country and made into a memorial for the worst most violent evils of slavery and their role on turning on american's conscious to end slavery, whether or not you are into that idea, would you want to live there yourself? would you like to wake up there in the morning and plan breakfast, have that be your home? who would do that? that article published in "the new york times" 15 years ago today was actually controversial at the time that it was published because in writing that piece it did reveal the exact home address of a senior government official who in fact had made mount misery his
private home. his name is donald rumsfeld, and he was at the time, the summer of 2006, struggling to the end of his disastrous tenure as secretary of defense under the bush administration. he lived at the time at mount misery. he bought the place in 2003 as he was leading the nation into the invasion of iraq. that was where he went to get away from washington while running two disastrous wars. he would like to have the helicopter drop him off at the slave breaker's home where douglas was tortured to death. he could relax there. donald rumsfeld died today at the age of 88. he had a singular career. he made gazillions of dollars in business. he served four terms in congress, which is something that's not frequently remembered
about him, especially given his later overt and pronounced disdain for congress. he served in a variety of roles in the nixon administration before becoming president gerald ford's white house chief of staff and ford's defense secretary. george w. bush brought him back to the pentagon in 2001 to be secretary of defense again. it's the only person to have served two nonconsecutive terms as secretary of defense. on september 11th, 2001, he was in his office at the pentagon as one of the hijacked planes slammed into the building. he helped rescue people, to his credit. he stayed on site at the pentagon that day all day while chaney got rushed to the bunker and they flew the president in the air for a long time as if they weren't sure where to put im. rumsfeld stayed in the pentagon. he planned for the invasion of afghanistan.
but after the invasion, not what to do. donald rumsfeld planned for the american invasion of iraq, but then not for what to do in iraq after the initial invasion. as chaos and civil war overwhen he will -- overwhelmed, he insisted that americans should see all of that as good news, really, because freedom is untidy. >> freedom is untidy. stuff happens. >> stuff happens. stuff happens. donald rumsfeld who died today, again, at the age of 88, was responsible for the plans of the american invasions and the subsequent wars in iraq and afghanistan. we are only just now getting out of afghanistan today. when it came to the systematic
torture of prisoners in facilities in iraq, rumsfeld blamed that on what he called a small group of prison guards who ran amok. the historical record shows that rumsfeld was sent memos in real-time about the actual planning, the actual orders were torture like that to occur as a matter of u.s. policy and on purpose. on the margins of one memo that spelled out prisoners in u.s. custody should be tortured. rums held hand wrote in the margin, i stand for 8 to 10 hours a day. why is standing limited to 4 hours. why are they forcing these prisoners to stand for longer? this doesn't seem harsh enough. there is also the memorable moment where among the thousands
of condolence letters sent to servicemen and servicewomen killed in iraq, he did not feel it was necessary to sign his name. instead used what's called an auto men. basically a machine that rubber stamped his name to sign all the supposedly heart felt condolence letters to the families of american service members killed in action in iraq. as roadside bombs started killing american service members by the dozen and then by the hundreds and then ultimately by the thousands, secretary rumsfeld was asked why u.s. forces didn't have up-to-date body armor, why there wasn't more of a rush to get it to them. he replied famously that you go to the army you have, not the one you want or wish to have, implies not only that we didn't have the army that we want, also implying that the timing of that war somehow wasn't our choice, wasn't somehow his choice and the choice of the other senior
officials in the administration who made that decision to invade iraq based on a false premise. made up threatening things about iraq that were not true that they insisted to the american people were true, telling the american people that iraq had terrible weapons that iraq didn't actually have. telling the american people that iraq was in cahoots with al-qaeda when they weren't. telling the american people that iraq was poised to invade us or attack us or come after the u.s. in some devastating way that was imminent. none of that was true. but no one was as enthusiastic a promoter as the false pretext for that war, no one. >> no terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of saddam hussein and iraq. >> we have what we consider to be credible evidence that
al-qaeda leaders sought contacts in iraq that could help them ie quire weapons of mass destruction capabilities. >> do you have hard evidence that they're in iraq? >> oh, there is no question about that al-qaeda have moved through and some have stayed. >> that's not just an assumption, we know that? >> i know that. >> if someone is waiting for a so-called smoking gun, it is certain we will have waited too long. >> what do you make of the statement made by the iraqi government yesterday that iraq has no weapons of mass destruction and is not developing any? >> they're lying. next? >> it is not knowable if force will be used. but if it is to be used, it could last, you know, six days, six weeks. i doubt six months.
>> i doubt six months. who is telling you a war in iraq might last six months. who saying it will go that long. try six days. donald rumsfeld was also a master at unusually specific lies about the most consequential things that led to that war that ultimately cost hundreds of thousands of lives. he told abc news, for example, after the invasion when he was asked how come the weapons of mass destruction you guaranteed were there they haven't been found? he insisted that not only were there weapons of mass destruction in iraq that were going to be found, but he knew where they were. we said, quote, we know where they are. they're in the area around tikrit and baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat. donald rumsfeld has died today at the age of 88. he did not die at his home at
mount misery, which was the slave breaking site of the life-changing and world-changing torture of frederick douglas, a place he bought as a weekend retreat. he died instead in new mexico at a ranch he had there. and donald rumsfeld's death comes on a die with about five weeks worth of news in it otherwise. we're covering a lot of different breaking news stories tonight. tonight "the washington post" was first to report, nbc news confirmed that a grand jury in manhattan filed criminal indictments today against the company of former president donald trump and allen weisselberg. the post and nbc are both citing two people familiar with the indictments. this means the indictments have been handed down by the grand jury. they are at this point sealed. nbc reported earlier today that the indictments are expected to
be unsealed at a court proceeding at 2:00 p.m. tomorrow where we will find out what the charges are and whereupon the defendant or defendants are expected to be in courtoace those charges. now, there is not an expectation at this point that former president trump himself is going to be hit with criminal charges tomorrow. although, that apparently remains a possibility for some theoretical potential superseding indictment coming after this one. i'm not sure i totally understand the legal world common wisdom that there very well may be a superseding indictment beyond the one that comes tomorrow. but we will chase that tonight and try to get some perspective and see how that is the prevailing wisdom. we'll have much more on that ahead tonight. but like i said, it is a remarkable news day today. today also brought the shocking news that the conviction of bill cosby was overturned by pennsylvania's supreme court.
cosby had served more than two years in prison after he was convicted of three counts of aggravated indecent assault in 2018. he will never serve another day of the 3 to 10 year sentence he had initially been given at the court overturned that conviction today. they overturned it on the grounds that a previous pennsylvania prosecutor, who happens to be the bizarre, trump impeachment lawyer, bruce caster, bruce caster, when he was serving as a prosecutor in pennsylvania had apparently given bill crosby an unwritten, unofficial, though apparently binding assurance that he wouldn't be prosecuted. and on the basis of that, the supreme court today overturned his ultimate prosecution and deemed that he cannot be tried on those charges again. a bizarre turn in one of the highest profile prosecutions of the me too era today and bill cosby is tonight out of prison and at his home in suburban philadelphia. that arriving just in this
whirlwind of news. don't forget that tomorrow is the last day of the term for the united states supreme court this year. and that means two very important things. first, there is two really big cases left to be decided. one about dark money, undisclosed money in politics. and another that, frankly, could put the final nail in the coffin of the already gutted voting rights act based on an arizona voting case. both of those decisions are expected from the supreme court tomorrow. election reform and voting rights advocates bracing for what's expected to not be great news on either of those fronts, but we shall see. the court has been full of surprises this year. the substance being the last day of the term matters. but tomorrow also matters because it is the last day of the term. and if justice steven briar or any of the other 80-something-year-old justices on the court are going to retire
from the court, past precedent would suggest that tomorrow could be the day which we will get that announcement. in the vast majority of modern supreme court retirements, they are announced to either take effect at the end of a supreme court term or they are announced at the close of a supreme court term. so if you are planning on this being the summer in which we get a supreme court vacancy and a senate fight over who to put on the court, we will likely tomorrow is the day we will most likely learn that news. it all happens at once. joining us now is my friend who is a pulitzer prize winning journalist and the author of many books about u.s. presidential administrations. three of his best selling books "the price of loyalty," "the one percent doctrine," and "the way of the world" all featured donald rumsfeld as a starring character. ron, it is really nice of you to be here tonight.
thank you for joining us. >> good to be here. >> so i did not give any sort of wholistic look at defense secretary rumsfeld 's legacy. i turn to you for that. i think i'm still quite red eyed in every sense of the word about his legacy with the iraq war. how do you think that we should look at his legacy today, the day of his death? >> rumsfeld crosses era's. he starts with nixon and ford and he bridges all the way to the era that follows it with rogue states and terrorists. he bridges really this modern period. and you can see in rumsfeld 's life how the united states dealt with its place in the world in that earlier period when the world in a way was find of neater. two countries of awesome power crossing swords to the world in which really i think significant
disasters under rumsfeld 's guidance are really at the center of his legacy. under the name rumsfeld you have two very, very long wars that in no way fulfill the goals intended, and you have what was then called enhanced interrogation techniques. we now call it torture. those are now under the name of the united states. you see now the struggle we have with truth in our public life. you can trace quite a bit of it back to going to war under false pretenses. that's an enormous historic crime. even dictators hesitate to flirt with that when young men and women will be dying on some foreign battlefield, but that is what happened here and rumsfeld was at the center of that. >> in a way that resonates for
me in terms of what you just said there. going back today and looking through old tape and public pronouncements from secretary rumsfeld i was struck by how many of the things that he said were factually untrue, not only known now to be factually untrue, but he was confronted at the time with evidence of what he said was untrue. not only did he recant his statements or repent for having told untruths to the american people, he never, as far as i know, and i put this to you, expressed any sort of regret for having told the american people a pack of lies to justify that war, nor for the consequences of those lies or the war itself. was he ever regretful? was he ever reflective? >> not one iota. that's interesting. he had many opportunities late in his life. everyone pressed him to say,
please, even if you are not faulting yourself, say it was the wrong decision with terrible consequences in a variety of ways. he wouldn't do it. it was interesting what you said before about that period, that period after 9/11 right up until the iraq invasion, rumsfeld was the most forceful, most electric personality commanding the news cycle, speaking with great clarity and pointedness. that was his way. during that administration. he really did sell that war to the american people. and he did it very effectively. you know, during the time in which he's doing that, there was evidence inside that administration which i found and other people did as well saying there were not weapons of mass destruction that anyone was able to find and would likely be findable in iraq. that was known before the invasion. you know, rumsfeld and others were warned, but it
was full steam ahead. i mean, in a way, in a way this is a last generation of leaders and policakers who believed in the exercise of u.s. power to re-shape the world. that was something we saw in the post world war ii period. and i think what they showed for the limits of u.s. power and a hue brisic notion of what the united states could do in the ways that it thought it could reshape the world. that is the legacy of that time. rumsfeld was a key actor. >> journalist and author, who has done more than perhaps anyone to illuminate the truth behind that very difficult period in american history "the price of loyalty," "one percent doctrine," ron, thank you for
joining us tonight. >> good to be here, rachel. >> all right. coming up next, we have had confirmed tonight now by nbc news as well as "the washington post" that a grand jury has indicted the trump organization and its cfo. we've got more on that ahead. stay with us. us gillette proglide. five blades and a pivoting flexball designed to get virtually every hair on the first stroke. so you're ready for the day with a fresh face for a fresh start. for a limited time get a 5th cartridge free.
former president trump's personal lawyer, rudy giuliani, had his license to practice law suspended in new york this summer. 35 years ago this summer, president trump's other personal lawyer, roy cohn was disbarred altogether. but there is another between those two. it has been three years now since michael cohen also lost his license to practice law when he pled guilty to multiple felonies in a scheme by which illegal contributions were made to trump's 2016 presidential campaign. those illegal contributions came in the form of hundreds of thousands of dollars that were
paid out to two women to stop those women from speaking publically about them allegedly having affairs with the president. those payments were designed to hush those women before the campaign. the payments were, therefore, designed to benefit his presidential campaign. they were illegal payments. they were, in fact, federal felonies. michael cohen remains the only person who went to prison for that scheme. even though he didn't benefit from those payments. donald trump did. that said, federal prosecutors quite famously in court documents that he committed those felonies in coordination with and at the direction of individual-1, who was donald trump. it was of course the person who was also the beneficiary of the actions described in those felony counts. and then that raised all sorts of actually still outstanding questions as to why federal prosecutors from the southern district of new york would ascribe that kind of blame to an individual who directed the
commission of those felonies who actually benefitted from the commission of those felonies. but then they closed the case without ever bringing charges against that individual. it is one thing to think that individual-1, president trump, was safe from indictment himself there because he was president at the time and the justice department won't indict a sitting president. but he's no longer president. nevertheless, that sdny case was closed. in addition to individual-1, though, there was also executive-1, described by prosecutors. executive-1, a top executive who prosecutors said disguised the reimbursements to cohen for those hush money payments, disguised them as legal expenses on the trump organization's books. executive-1 is allen weisselberg. prosecutors described his key role in covering up the commission of that felony by
falsifying the books of that new york business. now, the reason weisselberg was apparently not -- the reason weisselberg was not charged in that hush money scheme was that he apparently got immunity in exchange for his testimony. but, again, the testimony in that case was only used to lockup michael cohen and individual-1 and executive-1 both got away. these questions still linger about why sdny closed out that case and why michael cohen is still the only person who ever faced the music for those felonies, even though federal prosecutors identified other people having played bigger, more important roles in those felonies than he did. but that was it. apparently in terms of any federal case. maybe some day we'll figured out what happened at sdny there. but tonight washington post was first to report nbc news and others have now confirmed that a grand jury in manhattan filed criminal charges against the trump organization and its cfo allen weisselberg and those
indictments will be undealed tomorrow afternoon. the post is reporting that mr. weisselberg is expected to surrender tomorrow morning at the manhattan district attorney's office and that he's expected to be arraigned later in the day before a state judge in a new york courtroom. the trump organization will also be arraigned. it's hard to arraign an entity, at least it's hard to imagine that. the way it works in person is that the entity will be represented in court by one of its attorneys. the indictments are expected to be unsealed at around 2:00 p.m. eastern time tomorrow. because the indictments are sealed until then, we don't know exactly what the charges will be. there's been lots of reporting that the charges are expected to focus on tax-related alleged felonies. the trump organization's lawyers have been working overtime for days. telling the media that the charges are small potatoes and politically motivated and they
can't believe prosecutors would even bother to charge such little crimes because everybody does this kind of stuff. and of course you would expect defense lawyers to say exactly that. we won't know what the charges are until they are unsealed tomorrow afternoon. what we do know is that the state prosecutor that's been working on this, along with the new york attorney general's office that's been working on this, it's been three years that they have been at work on this case. and the question of whether former president donald trump personally himself ever faces charges in this case, that remains open. an open question. the trump organization's lawyer, ron fischetti has said what he's heard from prosecutors is that donald trump himself will not be charged in tomorrow's indictment, but that doesn't mean that he might not be charged in a subsequent indictment. or as they call it in legal terms a superseding indictments. now, people who watch these things tell us that's not unusual. it is not routine, but it is not
at unusual for for individuals associated with a company like this. it is not unusual for an initial indictment to be followed by subsequent superseding indictments with additional charges either more charges against the original defendants or potentially more charges against additional defendants. my question is, why do they do it that way? and as we're looking at the first potential legal accountability for former president trump, in this case connected to reportedly alleged tax felonies committed at his business, this prospect of his potential individual criminal liability remains open because of this expectation that there might be further indictments. what is the basis for that expectation? for those of us that aren't lawyers, should we understand that as a reasonable expectation to have in this case? is that wishful thinking by people who are hoping that donald trump will get indicted some day? how should we understand this in proper context?
last month "the washington post" was first to report that a special grand jury was meeting on a very intense schedule, meeting like three days a week to consider evidence against the company of former president donald trump. well, tonight "the washington post" was also first to report that that grand jury has now produced indictments. criminal charges have been filed against the trump organization and its long-time chief financial officer, an executive named allen weisselberg. charges were filed today by the grand jury. they will be unsealed tomorrow afternoon. meaning, we will not know the exact nature of the charges until they are unsealed. that reporting has now been confirmed by nbc news and several other news organizations. but whatever charges we do see tomorrow, we keep being told that may not be the end of the story. this is what i have questions about.
basically, every news organization that has reported this has sort of put forth this prospect in their own way, just as an example i'll tell you here is how "the wall street journal" put it today. quote, the charges expected tomorrow, thursday, could be the first in a series of charges in the future, particularly if prosecutors are able to gain cooperation from mr. weisselberg in order to bolster their broader investigation. so i am not a lawyer. i have questions. if that is true, why is that true? why would prosecutors approach it that way? why are people who know these things telling the public that it is a reasonable expectation that there might be additional indictments beyond what we're told is coming tomorrow. why as a matter of course would prosecutors wait to add more charges later against either the individuals and entities that will be charged tomorrow or indeed against other people involved here? joining us now is the assistant
attorney in the southern district of new york. we should mention that this state case that apparently is going to produce these indictments tomorrow has been a joint operation between the manhattan da and the new york attorney general's office. thank you for being here tonight. >> thank you, rachel. glad to be here. >> am i asking a dumb question about this potential superseding indictment advice that we keep getting along with the reporting about tomorrow's expected charges? >> you're asking a great legal question. and, look, there may be inside information that people are actually aware that there are additional charges coming. but i think as someone who has prosecuted both federally in the state's system as you point out, my observation is that is almost certainly correct. and i think there are a number of different flags for that. the first is da vance also made
clear equality under the law. as he has said that no man, not even a president, is above the law. the flip side of that coin is that no one, not even a president, should be scrutinized more closely or held to a higher standard or more heavy handed prosecution than anybody else. and he has made that clear. and i believe that he is a believer in the rule of law. and, so, it was a head scratcher when it was announced including by trump's lawyers that the charges to be filed or, i'm sorry, that now have been filed appear to be very narrow. and focussed particularly on fringe benefits. as trump's lawyers have pointed out, that's highly unusual. it's unusual for a corporate entity to be charged criminally in the first instance, and it's even more unusual for them to be charged with fringe tax benefits, you know, or payroll tax evasion and the like. and, so, it does seem like there is something missing here and
that there will be either additional charges in a superseding indictment or perhaps that the fraud scheme that is actually alleged in this initial indictment will be broader than trump's lawyers have made it appear to be. it could be a larger tax scheme. there may be additional tax fraud acts or it could be a larger scheme to defraud. but it does seem that this is part of something bigger and that either we will see that tomorrow or i expect in due course we will see that as part of the superseding indictment. >> but why would they be sequenced? is there something about an initial indictment that would somehow facilitate or make possible a second indictment with additional charges for those same defendants or charges against new defendants that aren't named in tomorrow's charges? i mean, that's the thing that i
don't understand. if there is a broader scheme that prosecutors are pursuing here and that they want to try and court, why wouldn't we learn about it all at once? >> so the quick answer with respect to weisselberg is that he is being charged because they want to put a squeeze on him and there is nothing more persuasive than charges that are actually filed in order to convince a target to actually flip and give the goods on other targets. so it could very well be that weisselberg is being charged now in order to turn him so that he can then provide evidence against a bigger fish likely donald trump himself. with respect to the organization, it could be part of the same answer. it could be that the facts are still developing. but as i said, i do suspect we will see tomorrow this is not just a small penny ante, or as
you called a case, but it will be larger scheme to defraud. that may develop based on whether or not they turn mr. weisselberg or others. but i think we will see a larger case that will evolve. >> who has experience in these matters as a former attorney in the federal district of new york and as a deputy new york atto time tonight. i think every stay with us.
tomorrow might be bigger. two cases left both election related. one is about dark money, political donations funneled through third parties that don't have to disclose their donors. open secrets says roughly$1 billion has been spent to influence our politics since 2010 that made it legal. right now the state of california has a small transparency measure that's designed to target it. it requires nonprofits to disclose their largest donors, specifically to the state attorney generals office. state justices will decide if that tiny level of transparency is allowed. the second case centers on two arizona voting laws, two laws that the democratic party says disproportionately target minority communities in violation of the voting rights act. if the supreme court justices agree tomorrow with the democratic party that laws like these can be thrown out because of that discriminatory effect on
minority voters, that would be good news for voting rights advocates looking for some help at the federal level at stopping voting restrictions that target minority voters. on the other hand, if the supreme court justices decide it doesn't matter that those laws disproportionately affect minority voters, that will be one more brutal blow against the voting rights act, which they gutted in a ruling in 2013. so if you want to keep tract at home, the brennan center is tracking all of the bills that the republican party across the country has been pushing this year to restrict voting rights, often in ways that target minority votes. their count is up to nearly 400 restrictive voting bills introduced this year across 40 different states. it couldn't be more consequential and timely. those questions will be answered tomorrow morning at 10:00 a.m. eastern by the supreme court. of course there is the perhaps even larger question on the mind of everybody in the whole legal
world that in some ways everybody on the mind of everybody who pays attention to the news in politics, which is the question of whether a supreme court justice might announce retirement tomorrow. justice steven breyer's name has been in the headlines because he has been facing calls to voluntarily retire, step down from his seat on the court. those calls coming from people who worry about a repeat of what happened in 2016 when republicans blocked president obama from filling a vacant seat. also people worried about what happened when ruth bader ginsburg died while still sitting on the court at a time when republicans controlled the united states senate. and that is how we got president trump's third supreme court justice nominee on the supreme court. in a worst-case scenario if justice breyer steps down, nobody believes that president biden will be allowed by the republicans to put his own nominee on the court.
justice breyer has given no hints that he is going. from the outside, we can objectively observe that he has authored a few of the courts bigger decisions in the past few weeks. maybe that's sort of a last hoorah. we don't know. 10 of the past 11 justices to retire either announced their retirement or timed their retirement for the end of the term. again, the end of the term is tomorrow. big day tomorrow. potentially gigantic news day tomorrow. watch this space.
tums vs. mozzarella stick when heartburn hits, fight back fast with tums chewy bites. fast heartburn relief in every bite. crunchy outside, chewy inside. ♪ tums, tums, tums, tums ♪ tums chewy bites in this family, everyone does their own laundry, but they all do it a little different. honestly, i add a couple of tide pods and just stuff everything in. it works. and of course, everyone thinks their way is right.
i stood in line for hours to get this. it has to be washed on delicate. it has to be cold water, it's better for the planet. the secret is, with tide pods it all works. of course it does. told ya! they're going to do it their way, and i get a break from the laundry. no matter how you wash, it's got to be tide. [♪♪] if you have diabetes, it's important to have confidence in the nutritional drink you choose. try boost glucose control. it's clinically shown to help manage blood sugar levels and contains high quality protein to help manage hunger and support muscle health. try boost today.
the boss is back baby! the difference in try and triumph... is just a little umph! upsees, i need upsees. i'm sure this isn't something money can't solve? what the fudge? oh my gosh, oh my gosh, oh my gosh! today was the biggest news day we have had in a long time. just news coming of every stripe from every angle all day long and into the evening. tomorrow is likely to be a bigger news day than today was. make sure you get your beauty sleep tonight. make sure you eat your wheatties in the morning. i will see you