tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC October 13, 2021 5:00pm-6:00pm PDT
goldberg. pennsylvania attorney general josh shapiro who has been at the forefront of the fight against the big lie joins my in his first national interview before launching his campaign for governor. vote, vote, vote in virginia, very important. "all in" with chris hayes starts right now. tonight on "all in" big news from the january 6th committee the man at the heart of the coup attempt in the justice department. >> he's the central person in this saga, and at some point his testimony is going to be obtained. >> plus, how federal judges are stepping up and leading the way on the prosecution of january 6th insurrectionists. then, the white house addresses the shortage of everything. >> today we have some good news. we're going to help speed up the delivery of goods all across
america. >> from backed up ports to flights on planes, america's search for a new post-pandemic normal. all that and the washington football team cheer leaders still seeking justice in the wake of jon gruden's firing. >> it's high time that this was exposed and that the nfl takes action. >> "all in" starts right now. good evening from new york, i'm chris hayes, just hours ago the january 6th select committee issued a brand new subpoena. this one for trump justice department official jeffrey clark. we've talked about clark before on this program. he is a key figure. clark is a lifelong republican lawyer. nothing particularly remarkable about his career. he became the acting assistant attorney general for the doj's civil division, which is a very big job at the very end of donald trump's term. that was when a lot of people were fleeing, right.
once trump lost the election, jeffrey clark became one of the leading voices, if not the leading voice pushing the justice department to play its role in trump's attempts to overturn the election. clark even reportedly plotted directly with trump to oust the acting attorney general, that was jeffrey rosen at the time, and take thiz job. the senate judiciary committee detailed some of clark's actions in the bomb shell report. he met with trump personally and urged the department of justice leadership to intervene in the georgia election. he drafted a kind of template later, a later for the acting attorney general, jeffrey rosen, to send to georgia titled "georgia proof of concept" basically telling them, look the doj is investigating voter fraud, maybe you should hold off on signing the electors. this was basically the doj using the power of the department of
justice of the united states government to intervene in the states and give them cover to overturn the election and send trump electors to washington. by early january, clark's pressure had turned into this crazy outright threat, his own kind of coup within a coup within the department of justice. according to the judiciary report, clark eventually informed acting attorney general rosen, again, this is his boss, that trump had offered to install him in rosen's place, and told rosen he would turn down trump's offer if rosen would agree to sign that proof of concept letter. clark has denied he plotted to overthrow rosen but according to the report, trump and clark only backed off. there were a number of meeting, a three-hour meeting at one point after several senior justice department leaders banned together and said we will resign in protest if crow do this, and the fallout will overshadow what you're trying to do. in fact, former acting attorney general jeffrey rosen whose role
in all of this has been fascinating to see. you remember william barr handed him a flaming wreckage of the justice department and pieced out a letter about how great trump was. rosen just testified to the january 6th select committee today voluntarily. didn't have to be subpoenaed. went in and answered questions. looks like it was about eight hours. well, now the committee wants to hear from trump's apparent pick to replace him. that would be mr. jeffrey clark. and so they sent clark a subpoena today asking him to produce documents and appear before the committee itself on october 29th. if he does appear, it would shed a whole lot of light on what exactly happened at the justice department in the last days of the trump administration. >> obviously he's a person of interest. he's the central person in this saga, and at some point in the committee before a grand jury someplace his testimony is going to be obtained. >> now, the senate judiciary
committee, you saw sheldon whitehouse talking to rachel. he's a member of that committee. they tried to get clark to sit down for a voluntary interview with him over the summer, but he did not respond. according to politico, he has yet to field questions from congressional investigators, scrutinizing trump's final weeks in office. his lawyer declined to comment on the subpoena. betsy woodruff swan reported for politico, broke the news of jeffrey rosen's testimony today, and she joins me now. it was not necessarily unanticipated but still a big deal, and this is a very big central figure in this entire thing, and i think someone who's going to not be cavalier about violating subpoenas if i had to guess? >> the january 6th story is very much in terms of this particular episode a tale of two jeffs. we know a ton about jeff rosen's perspective, he's actually been unusually forthcoming regarding just about everything he knows from his time running the
justice department through a historically chaotic moment. i know based on conversations with folks throughout the day that one of the key focuses now for the january 6th select committee, one thing that they really pressed rosen on when he was testifying was clark's role. lots of questions about who clark was working with, whether he was working with people in the justice department as well as who he was working with outside the justice department. questions about the way clark was connected to strategies to try to get the supreme court to step in and overturn the election, as well, of course, as lots of questions regarding this effort to tell the state legislators falsely that the fbi had found meaningful evidence of voter fraud so the state legislators would try to step in. clark is the key next figure for the select committee to talk to. what's interesting about him is that several months ago, trump actually green lit clark's testimony to congress. he wrote a letter a couple of
months back saying that a number of senior doj officials, clark included, that he would be okay with them testifying, that he would not try to use executive privilege to block their testimony. trump said in that letter, i'm only going to be okay with it if there aren't other future violations of executive privilege, et cetera, et cetera, but there's on paper a letter from trump saying jeffrey clark can testify. and it's still a bit of a head scratcher to me why that testimony from clark hasn't happened. especially now that the clock, frankly, there's just less time than there was a couple of months ago to get that interview set up. so i would certainly expect the select committee to move as quickly and aggressively as possible, if clark doesn't comply with their subpoena, in part because they've got it in writing, trump saying that he's okay with clark testifying. >> all right. betsy woodruff swan, great reporting, thank you very much. >> thank you. i want to turn to harry
litman, former deputy assistant attorney general, as well as the u.s. attorney for the western district of pennsylvania, barbara mcquaid, formger u.s. attorney for the eastern district of michigan. harry let me start with you on clark and compliance here. it does seem to betsy's point, there's no real colorable claim here of executive privilege particularly when the president has written a letter saying not so. and october 29th, sheldon whitehouse said someone's going to have to hear from him. >> yeah, first, i'm not sure that's right. i mean, we have eight conversations documented with trump before the big show down on january 3rd. they strike me actually, unlike many of the other conversations at issue, like steve bannon, as having a fairly good claim of executive privilege, and it doesn't matter what trump said before, he will take it back. but clark has a lot more pressure on him than these other guys. he, first of all, is being pilloried now from all corners.
he lost his job in the last couple of days. rosen testified for ten hours, and you can bet he actually crucified him, same with donahue, the acting deputy attorney general. everything is going to be pinned on him. he has potential liability for violating doj rules. as you said, there's an inspector general investigation, bar rules, he could lose his license, which he's too young to do, and criminal. so if he lets everyone else do the talking and stays quiet, he's in the soup. on the other hand, if he comes forward, he's in all kinds of trouble, too. it's obviously not going to be a friendly committee. you can see that from sheldon whitehouse, i think the pressure on him is greater though the initial claim of executive privilege is stronger. >> there's a lot of moving parts on this, too. you've got the white house reiterating again, barbara mcquaid, and to be clear, the white house has upheld executive privilege in a whole bunch of
areas that essentially protect trump. there's some stuff having to do with the mueller report that they have upheld executive privilege but they are very stairway, dana referee -- remus, the president maintains his conclusion of executive privilege. seems like those are going to be moving on their way soon as well barring some unforeseen intervention. >> i think that's right, chris. the executive privilege belongs to the sitting president, not to a prior president, so donald trump can recommend that privilege be asserted as to these documents or as to testimony, but ultimately the decision belongs to the current president and the decision isn't to protect the interests of any person who served as president but to protect the office of the presidency and the republic, and of course as we learned in the u.s. versus nixa case back in the watergate era, the executive privilege is not absolute, and it must yield when there is a
greater interest. president biden has said there's a greater interest here in learning what happened in the january 6th insurrection than any executive privilege. i think ultimately we're going to hear from people like jeffrey clark and others about what happened in the days leading up to january 6th. >> there's also a big show down scheduled for tomorrow on bannon, and i wanted to talk about this. so there's four people that were initially subpoenaed, meadows, dan scavino, cash patel, and steve bannon. bannon wasn't a part of the white house. he was an informal adviser. he's saying there's an executive privilege claim by the ex-president who wasn't formerly part of the government, very weak. he has not been in contact with the committee. he says basically i'm going to violate your subpoena, and today he's saying looking forward to steve bannon's deposition tomorrow, receiving all the testimony evidence we subpoenaed. this is a legal order, as well as a civic duty to share info about the most sweeping violent attack on congress since the war of 1812. something is going to happen tomorrow one way or the other, and then it's a question what
the department of justice, the committee does and the doj does if he doesn't show up, right? >> yes, but then what the courts do. something is going to happen. i'll tell you what it is. bannon won't show up, and barb's 100% right about the law, it does belong to the sitting president but the point is are they able to roll the same slow game that they did with the impeachment. bannon is a very good example. he has a very weak claim, as you say, it's been years since he was even in the department. if he goes to court, we have this terrible disconnect between the natural time line of a case, 18 months to two years, and the natural time line of an investigation. so what matters now are not the few days of the claim but if they can get away with slow rolling it in the courts. that's the question. what i was saying before about clark is he has less reason to do it, more incentive, maybe, to come forward, but the issue is not who has privilege. the issue is can they get into a
court. >> and barbara this is where it strikes me that pressure, max mallism, maintaining it, pushing ahead, doing what you need to do, if you believe the folks on the committee are investigating the worst act on the capitol since 1812, the most egregious violation of democratic transfer of power since fort sumpter you have to use the means at your disposal to get the testimony you need. >> that's right. and congress has three methods of compelling testimony, inherent power, calling on the sergeant of arms, the one that william barr joked with nancy pelosi about, where are your handcuffs, that's not going to happen. and there has been talk of criminal contempt, charging with a crime and getting the justice department to do that, which is a possibility, but i think what you really want is the testimony and the most effective way to get that, i think, is through a civil suit, as harry says, acting the court to act with urgency. the penalty is he could be
jailed until he decides to cooperate and testify. >> always sort of wait out the 18th months on a chinese billionaire's yacht. harry lipman, barbara mcquaid, thank you very much. here's a piece of advice, should you find yourself in court, i bet i could represent myself better than a lawyer could, and a judge literally tells you i don't think this is a good idea, you should listen to the judge, or end up with january 6th defendant, winding up admit to go two more felonies he started with. the wild details from that hearing, and the judges holding rioters accountable after this. rioters accountable after this a) definitely higher. (man 1) we're like yodeling high. [yodeling] yo-de-le-he... (man 2) hey, no. uh-uh, don't do that. (man 1) we should go even higher! (man 2) yeah, let's do it. (both) woah! (man 2) i'm good. (man 1) me, too. (man 2) mm-hm. (vo) adventure has a new look. (man 1) let's go lower. (man 2) lower, that sounds good. (vo) discover more in the all-new subaru outback wilderness. love. it's what makes subaru, subaru.
you need an ecolab scientific clean here. and here. which is why the scientific expertise that helps operating rooms stay clean now helps the places you go too. look for the ecolab science certified seal. you could wait... all night... for an email response from steve, who will sign back in at 9 am tomorrow morning. orrrr... you could find the answer right now in slack. and give steve a break. slack. where the future works.
discover card i just got my cashback match is this for real? yup! we match all the cash back new card members earn at the end of their first year automatically woo! i got my mo-ney! it's hard to contain yourself isn't it? uh- huh! well let it go! woooo! get a dollar for dollar match at the end of your first year. only from discover.
in business, setbacks change everything. get a dollar for dollar match at the end of your first year. so get comcast business internet and add securityedge. it helps keep your network safe by scanning for threats every 10 minutes. and unlike some cybersecurity options, this helps protect every connected device. yours, your employees' and even your customers'. so you can stay ahead. get started with a great offer and ask how you can add comcast business securityedge. plus for a limited time, ask how to get a $500 prepaid card when you upgrade. call today.
nine months have passed since the january 6th insurrection and more and more of the nearly 700 people charged in connection with it are starting to get their day in court. here's one individual, for instance, brandon fellows, a 26-year-old from albany, new york, he faces a felony charge for obstruction in connection with the riot. he showed up to the january 6th insurrection wearing a fake red beard and a usa coat. here he is inside what prosecutors say is jeff merkley's office where according to his criminal complaint he smoked marijuana which is not too different from what he told the cnn reporter at the scene. >> we spoke to some people who broke into the capitol. >> what happened in there, tell us what happened. >> we went if there, and i walked in, and there was just a whole bunch of people lighting up in an oregon room, i don't know if it was tons of oregon
paintings, they were smoking a bunch of weed in there. >> he was trying to get his bond status revoked and against the advice of the judge, he chose to represent himself, and admitted to two additional felonies. he had climbed into the capitol through a broken window and tried to get the previous judge removed as putting his wife's phone number as an his emergency contact, and missed court ordered drug and alcohol appointments. the judge in question told him quote you have engaged in a pattern of behaviors that shows contempt for the criminal justice system. the judge ordered brandon fellows back into the custody of a d.c. jail. a senior reporter for buzz feed news who published a database of documents, former federal judge nancy gert ner who served on the u.s. district court of massachusetts for 14 years. you have been doing really
excellent reporting along with brian riley, two of the people i have been following along with scott mcfarland. you have this database of the first hundred pleas here. what's your take away from the data we have so far of the first hundred individuals to plea out for their role in this? >> for the most part what we have seen is early plea offers from the some of the lowest hanging fruit from january 6th. the folks who posted online, i was there. here's a photo of me inside. but who didn't do much else besides go into the building which itself on its own is a federal crime. so the vast majority of plea deals have been for low level misdemeanor crimes carrying no more than up to a year, and usually only up to six months in prison. they're hoping to, you know, avoid jail time entirely. that hasn't been completely successful for some of them. and then i think it's important to note that the other smaller subset of plea deals have gone
to individuals with a connection to some of the broader conspiracies that we know the justice department is looking into. it's gone to a handful of people with ties to the oath keepers who pleaded guilty to being part of a conspiracy, to attack the capitol, to stash guns in a hotel in virginia in case they needed weapons for whatever happened on january 6th. so you know, there are really two buckets here, it's your low level misdemeanor pleas and it's the cooperators as the justice department builds some of these larger investigations. >> and there are still hundreds more, and there's been something that's been happening, nancy, that i wanted to talk to you about as someone who serves as a federal district court judge, which is what these judges in question are. they're trying judges, they have these cases a huge amount of processing that has to happen. this is u.s. district judge thomas hogan, who said the following, it's become evident to me in the riot cases that many of the defendants who are
pleading guilty are not truly accepting responsibility. they seem to me to be trying to get this out of the way as quickly and inexpensively as possible, and stating whatever they have to say in guilty pleas and hoping to get probation and leave. we have also seen judges chastising doj for not asking for larger sentences, how do you think about this question of accountability in the context of a plea when you are a federal judge. >> it's hard, having a show of remorse is really rarely, you know, something that is coming sort of flowing from the person's heart. you know, i mean, there isn't a defendant that was before me. there was certainly some for whom it was a, you know, a real feeling but most of the time people knew what they had to say in order to get out of there. the problem with judges chastising the department of justice is the department of justice is in a little bit of a pickle. there are, what, so many hundreds of people that have been arrested. they really have to determine, they have to allocate their
resources, so what zoe said was right, they got the low hanging fruit, which are the people who just went in, and there are, you know, literally wrongfully parading charges. then there are the people, look, who are getting obstruction of a proceeding, the proceeding being the certification process, and then there's sort of an intermediate category about people who assaulted police officers and actually had weapons, but, i mean, i understand the frustration, this is sort of more than an ordinary, you know, demonstration gone bad. but ultimately the prosecutors had to pick their cases and there's really nothing a judge can do. >> it's a good point also about the fact that so much of the way the system, the machinery of american criminal justice system, which is one of the largest in the world and puts more people in prison than basically anywhere else which is constantly this sort of assembly line with lucy and the chocolates, that's the way the whole thing worked.
it's not law and order, it's not perry mason, it's how much you can get done in what amount of time. that's true here, it's part of the deeply systemic cloth of the entire system. >> and who can cooperate. who can cooperate. what you can hang over people's heads so they can get to the people who were actually organizing it, but the prosecutors were making those decisions and they're very hard to second guess. if the government tried for more, people talked about, you know, seditious conspiracy, these cases would have taken a very long time, and many of them likely would not have succeeded. so they're doing -- they're taking what they can prove. >> yeah, it's a really good point. this is all other elements of american criminal justice embedded in the scale of a system, which is just sort of constantly grinding in the background underneath overwhelming numbers unlike anything else in the developing world. zoe tillman, and judge nancy
gertner, thank you both. shortages and everybody quitting their jobs at record rates, is this part of the post-pandemic normal, what it's like on the other side of a once in a lifetime catastrophe after this. lifetime catastrophe afte this t know, i don't know,♪ ♪i don't know why i can't get enough of your love babe♪ ♪oh no, babe girl, if i could only make you see♪ ♪and make you understand♪ get a dozen double crunch shrimp for $1 with any steak entrée. only at applebee's. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood. ♪♪ your new pharmacy is here. to make sure you don't run out of meds here.
or fist bump there, or... oh! i can't wait to go there! or reunite there, start here. walgreens makes it easy to stay protected wherever you go. schedule your free flu shot and covid-19 vaccine today. ♪♪ hi mr. charles. we made you dinner. aww, thank you. ♪♪ if you have this... consider adding this. an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan from unitedhealthcare. medicare supplement plans help by paying some of what medicare doesn't... and let you see any doctor. any specialist. anywhere in the u.s. who accepts medicare patients. so if you have this... consider adding this.
call unitedhealthcare today for your free decision guide. ♪ ♪ i see trees of green ♪ for your free decision guide. ♪ red roses too ♪ ♪ i see them bloom for me and you ♪ (music) ♪ so i think to myself ♪ ♪ oh what a wonderful world ♪ let me get this straight. you've got an a.i. strategy to deliver a better customer experience, that will help us retain our customers and even grow our business? how much is this going to cost? here's the figure. 59. 59 million? no, five9. as in five9 intelligent cloud contact center. they won't just power our transformation.
♪ ♪ you don't become a runner, who breaks eight world records... after age 65, without a serious support system. kathy martin has one in medicare from blue cross blue shield. she won't go a day without the right card. because she can't go a day without running. the medicare coverage trusted by more doctors. this is the benefit of blue. find your local blue cross and blue shield plan at benefitofblue.com [sizzling] i may not be able to tell time, but i know what time it is. [whispering] it's grilled cheese o'clock.
my hygienist cleans but iwith a round head. is. so does my oral-b my hygienist personalizes my cleaning. so does my oral-b oral-b delivers the wow of a professional clean feel every day. age-related macular degeneration may lead to severe vision loss, so the national eye institute did 20 years of clinical studies on a formula found in preservision. if it were my vision, i'd ask my doctor about preservision. it's the most studied eye vitamin brand. if it were my vision, i'd look into preservision
you may have heard earlier this week jon gruden head coach of las vegas raiders just lost to the chicago bears this weekend, a former analyst for espn's monday night football, that he resigned from his job as head coach of the raiders after the "new york times" detailed a number of e-mails where gruden used racist, homophobic language. also in the report there was another detail. "the times" revealed the
following, quote, gruden exchanged e-mails with former washington football team general manager bruce allen and other men that included photos of women wearing only bikini bottoms including one photo of two washington team cheerleaders. that seems like a not really awesome thing to do. now we now know those photos and e-mails released actually came to light as part of a completely separate investigation that had nothing to do with jon gruden. as the daily beast explains the e-mails involving gruden were some of the 650th that investigators reviewed during the continuation of an investigation into the workplace culture at the washington football team ordered by nfl commissioner roger goodell, himself a topic of some of gruden's crude insults last year. that investigation began after this truly disturbing expose by "the washington post," incredible piece of investigative reporting, found rampant sexual harassment at the washington football organization. among other things it revealed that according to one former
staffer a ten-minute video of lewd outtakes from a photo shoot with the team cheerleaders was made without their knowledge for washington football team owner daniel snyder who denied he acknowledged the video but a copy was obtained from another employee. in a 2004 incident he is alleged to have told a team cheerleader that he and her friend were at a hotel room and she and her friend should go upstairs and get to know each other better. the nfl fined the team a record $10 million. sounds like a lot of money but for a team valued at $4.2 billion fifth highest in the league it won't sting too much. the nfl declined to punish dan snyder the owner directly. he still owns the team after all that. this week las vegas raiders head coach jon gruden resigned rightly i would say after his racist, homophobic e-mails became public but dan snyder who reportedly oversaw and participated in a culture of
sexual harassment and bullying has faced very little real sanction and the nfl has declined to make any public report about their finding. now a group of former washington team cheerleaders is demanding that report be made public. ellie coburn was a washington cheerleader for four years and marketing director for ten and started a petition to make the report of the nfl public. melanie, thank you so much for joining us. i want to start with just your experience of inside that organization as i was relaying the reporting that's happening and these e-mails how that jievs with what personally you experienced there. >> well, thanks for having me, chris. i really appreciate you sharing our stories. as you can imagine it is a male dominated field. coming into the washington redskins front office and being involved in the organization from that side versus the sidelines as a cheerleader was totally different.
i was one of many cheerleaders actually hired to be a full-time staff person. there were many of us sort of hand picked and interviewed and offered positions in various facets of the organization. i do feel we were maybe picked for the wrong reasons. obviously there was a lot of sexual objectivity in the office. there was, you know, a lot of misogyny as you sort of alluded to in your introduction. it was also a very intimidating and threatening work environment for many of us. i spent ten years there probably four years longer than i wanted to because i felt i was there to protect the women of the washington redskins cheerleaders and keep them safe from executives, sponsors, and everybody else trying to have their way with them.
>> having had that experience, i mean, did that detail, i mean, what was your reaction? you know this internal report gets commissioned. it is not released publicly, just sat on. the next thing you know there are these e-mails jon gruden sent including topless photos of washington cheerleaders. and meanwhile you and fellow cheerleaders have been asking for this report to be made public. now this is apparently the first anyone is seeing of anything that happened in the course of that investigation. >> yeah. that's all we've ever wanted is transparency and accountability. i will say that the women that were in those videos that you referenced, many did come together to fight back and they had a mediation they settled with in december. along with that obviously came a lot of ndas. so they were silenced. however, that is when i started being more vocal. i do not like public speaking. i was not part of the story until i found out that they did this to these women right under
my nose when i was working with them. i was at those calendar shoots. i know those compromising positions they were in. we trusted those redskins production crews to do their job and keep them safe. it's devastating. these women have been texting me for the last 36 hours wondering if their nude bodies or photographs are circulating through the inboxes of the nfl. it's just triggered them, reliving trauma we've been reliving for the past 15 months, and it's like an open wound. >> i have to say i've seen some folks on the right trying to make this about you can't say anything anymore. what about your inbox? i can't imagine anyone with any kind of sense of decency thinks it's fine to circulate the photo of a woman topless surreptitiously taken to other people around in an e-mail. like just so obviously
disgusting behavior whatever your politics or views are. >> oh, yeah. indicative of the toxic culture that existed within the washington football team and around the league. it wasn't just our team. these were, e-mails from other people, other teams. it is disheartening and disappointing and all we ever wanted was transparency and accountability and i think we deserve that. these women deserve it. all these employees. all the men and women i worked with over the years. there was over 120 people involved in that investigation. we've heard nothing. >> it is strange that this is what ends up surfacing from this investigation that has been kept lock and key, like jon gruden's e-mails. again, it's good there is transparency but it does seem like it is high pastime. have you been offered money to settle on this and not talk about it? >> yeah. i was very vocal after the
initial articles in "the washington post" came out and i started that petition in february, mid february 20, 21. yes, i was offered hush money. i did not entertain it. i didn't even ask how much they were offering because this is not something that i am -- i mean, i've never wanted that. all i want is to speak up for the women that i admire and love and give them a voice when they don't have one. >> melanie coburn thank you very much for joining me. i really appreciate it. >> thanks, chris. >> that is all in for this wednesday evening. the rachel maddow show starts right now. good evening. >> thank you my friend. fantastic show tonight by the way. you've been doing great shows recently but tonight was amazing >> i appreciate it. thanks for joining us this hour. let me just start with an admission here. i will admit i fully recognize and i will admit that over the years there has been some tough reporting and tough commentary on this show