Skip to main content

tv   Andrea Mitchell Reports  MSNBC  October 22, 2021 9:00am-10:00am PDT

9:00 am
about changing the filibuster rule to get voting rights and perhaps other key priorities to pass the 50/50 senate. joining me now, nbc news chief correspondent and weekend today kristen welker. and garrett haake. and jonathan lemire. >> garrett, to you, the speaker of the house, at the hill, we're hearing details for the first time about the state of negotiations that the town hall. >> reporter: yeah, that's exactly right. the speaker sounding pretty optimistic there. even more optimistic, a notice from steny hoyer, speaker of the house, will aim to consider both the infrastructure bill and the build back better bill, a bill that doesn't yet exist by the end of next week. so, the house trying to move fast, trying to capitalize on this perceived momentum. and i think a lot of this will
9:01 am
fall to the president which i know kristen will talk about to try to wrangle the elements of the water. to pay for the bill, even at a $1.5 trillion level, not having that a major problem, but you can see the house committed to trying to push ahead quite quickly here. >> i want to drill down on all of that, but also the filibuster news, kristen, the first time that the president being so explicit about being willing and of course the failure again, on the voting rights the other day to actually modify the filibuster on that end? >> it was really significant, andrea, that president biden said he would potentially consider backing changing the filibuster rule. of course, he would not be involved in that. but his support would be significant. look, the fact that the voting rights reform bill failed to pass was something that has
9:02 am
really roiled his base. particularly black leaders. african americans across the country. and of course, that's a key part of his constituency. so, this has been an ongoing question for this administration and for this president. would he support such a move, and if not, why not? in order to actually get what he has said is a key agenda item for him to pass, voting rights. so this is something that we're going to be watching very closely, andrea. and it does come as he's ramping up the position, trying to ramp up pressure on democrats to get on the same page. that is why we see this president getting personally more involved in the conversations. meeting throughout the week and of course that breakfast today. now, as you mentioned, andrea, there were headlines that came out of that town hall. last night, the fact that president biden revealed for the first time that at this point in dime, increasing the corporate tax rate is out because of
9:03 am
course senator kyrsten sinema doesn't support it. i've been having conversations with sources familiar with these negotiations behind the scenes who tell me, in principle, senator sinema is on board with the way in which president biden and the white house is proposing to pay for this. but what are those details? what does that look like? those are the specifics that we haven't gotten yet, andrea, and we're trying to drill down on. and of course, he is backing away from some of the key priorities like tuition-free college and paid leave from 12 weeks which progressive democrats had wanted but not something that moderates are prepared for that. still, the talking points what you just heard garrett talk about, and what democrats on capitol hill -- ultimately, ultimately, democrats are going to try to argue if this pack such is a bill and two bills if
9:04 am
you include the infrastructure measure that will bring about big change. >> i think that was really part of the motivation of last night's town hall meeting to focus on the positives, what they're doing, rather than the top dollar figures, the pay fors and what they're having to cut from it, i'm not sure how successful that was. let me drill down on the filibuster and play part of that question and answer, he was also asked, as you point out, by a member of the audience how black people were so important, black voters, to his election. and how they haven't seen vote rights. they haven't seen police reform. and this is what he had to say about the filibuster. >> if in fact, i get myself into at this moment the debate on the filibuster, i lose at least three votes right now to get what i have to get done on the economic side of the equation, the foreign policy side of the
9:05 am
equation. so, what i have said, you're shaking your head no, let me tell you something, jack, it's the truth -- >> when it comes to voting rights, just so i'm clear, though, you would entertain doing away with the filibuster on that one issue, is that correct? >> and maybe more. >> and maybe more. that's provocative. jonathan lemire, that was news. but also the news that he made unintentionally about the national guard. using the national guard to unload ships to fill the gaps, the labor gaps on truck drivers. to try to unstick the stuck supply chain. that was a big discussion last night. and they had to clarify that for us. >> let's hear from the president, jonathan, let's hear first the president say it and to show how a affirmative he was. >> would you consider the national guard to help? >> absolutely. >> would you be fine with
9:06 am
national guard, men and women, driving trucks? >> yes, if we can't move, increase the number of truckers which we're in the process of doing. >> now, jonathan, forgive me, i wanted people to see that. your reactions. >> reporter: no, andrea, quite all right. certainly, this is not the first time the white house has had to clarify some things the president has said. remember, a week ago, harken back to what he said about steve bannon that he should be held, prosecuted, and the white house had to walk about that as well they wanted to make sure there's a bright red line between what the president said and the department of justice. they clarified last night that he may have overstepped there as well. but i want to turn to the filibuster in that moment, certainly, this is something with growing discontent among some democrats, those on the left, saying why isn't this, the
9:07 am
vote rights at the center of the presidency? not just because of the potential of winning the midterms in 2024, but democracy, itself, but it would impact those of color those voted for joe biden. and against the victory against donald trump. the white house is focused on these two massive bills meaning this has to go first and then move on to other things. that may not be enough for democrats. the president hasn't done much in voting rights. he and aides are encouraging to outorganize opponents. which is a tough sale. you can outorganize and have enthusiasm, but if a republican state doesn't count your vote doesn't do any good. that's their fear. this needs to be at the center of what he does going forward. >> garrett, we know that the speaker is speaking optimism, we don't miss deadlines, and we're
9:08 am
going to do it before the president leaves the country before the g-20 and the climate summit. and he's lost to joe manchin, he's lost the corporate tax that he wanted with senator sinema. and he made a very obvious point in a 50/50 senate, he said every one of them is a precedent. every one has a veto. >> reporter: that is exactly right. in a 50/50 senate, democrats have control technically, but in reality, they only have as much control as they can find total unanimous agreement in every policy. when you're talking about the build back better agenda that is at its minimum $1.5 trillion package, who knows what the democrats will ultimately settle on, there's a ton in there to find agreement. that's a challenge they face. so this deadline across the finish line by the end of next
9:09 am
week is incredibly ambitious, when you don't have a bill or legislative text or you don't even have a framework agreement how to pay for it, but democrats can get wins on the board. ideally before the voters of virginia select their next governor. and the president gets on a plane. so coming up some some kind of framework that would satisfy progressives and allow a hard infrastructure bill to even be on the president's desk before the deadlines would be considered a major win if they can pull it off. >> and kristen welker, when we talk about perhaps what the president hadn't said, as jonathan pointed out, in fact, the steve bannon comment was immediately corrected by the justice department, that there is a firewall. and the president acknowledged, he said, i was wrong when i said that about steve bannon. i'm not trying to signal to the
9:10 am
justice department. i've not had a single conversation with the attorney general or anyone else there. as a former judiciary chairman, he knows that. he knows how upset they were with the way donald trump broke that firewall but he also interestingly made a mistake about taiwan. and he's pushed back against beijing towards taiwan and he may have gone too far. >> reporter: that's right, andrea, president biden was asked if the united states would intervene if china attacked taiwan. and he said, yes. that goes against long-standing policy, not to say how it would respond if china were to attack taiwan. so the walkback from the white house was to say is there was no change in u.s. policy. big picture, andrea, this underscores just how delicate and sensitive the relationship is between united states and
9:11 am
china. and that will be on stage next week. >> absolutely. kristen welker, jonathan lemire, and garrett haake, thanks so much. it's going to be a couple of busy days if not more, as we watch whether or not the speaker's optimism is well placed. >> the stunning news out of new mexico involved alec baldwin and the death of a star filmmaker. one person dead and another wounded after the celebrated actor discharged a prop firearm we're told during the filming of a new western. here's the investigation into the incident ongoing as a baldwin spokesperson describing the shooting as an accident. joining me vlad villegas and dan danny cevallos. alec has tweeted his sorrow, this is a star filmmaker killed. a mother of a child.
9:12 am
and alec baldwin is also the producer of this film, not just the star of it. >> reporter: andrea, that's correct, we have this tweet moments ago shared by alec baldwin. very emotional. i will read it. he says there are no words to convey my shock and sadness regarding this tragic accident that took the life of halyna hutchins, a wife, mother and deeply admired colleague of ours. i'm fully cooperating with the police investigation to address how this tragedy occurred and i am in touch with her husband. and for now what we know, she was pronounced dead at the hospital. and the director joel sosa hurt in the incident was released from the hospital, according to the spokesperson, andrea.
9:13 am
>> it's hard to understand how this happened. it's a huge investigation. danny cevallos, i know there's indications in the past, there's are liability issues, assuming as we do, but the handling of weapons, i was lead to believe that a prop cannot fire real bullets. and firearms can kill, what's the disparity here? >> well, it has killed. but at least reportedly, this may have been a situation where a live round has found its way on to the set. that's one of the prime rules of set safety, no live rounds, period. if you use blanks, blanks can be dangerous, an actor i believe in 1983 was goofing around on set. i know this sounds crazy, held a gun with a blank up to his head. the force from the blank which
9:14 am
contains a primer and gunpowder is enough that pushed a bone into his brain and killed him six days later. so blanks can be very dangerous, reportedly, at least reports are emerging that this was a live round that somehow made its way on to set. so folks are going to be looking very closely at the first assistant director. the armorer, the stunned coordinator. those are all folks on a movie set that have responsibility for safety. particularly, the armorer is the one who teaches people how to use the firearms. if he or she were on set, they would have been expected to inspect. we don't know for sure. we aren't sure whether there was a live round or some sort, but that is likely where the investigation will focus. >> and, danny, let me just get a better understanding for myself, not being familiar with the firearms is say pop pistol a real pistol that could fire either blanks or real bullet?
9:15 am
or is it -- >> it can be. right. there are some pistols that are complete dummy pistols that can't do anything. but for real life shots, for close-ups, they may use something that has a projectile. and then cut and use dummy bullets with blanks which will sound like bullets but up close don't look like real bullets. that's a very scary process. you need somebody to be super careful that you're using the right kinds of dummies and blanks. keeping live rounds at all costs away from the sets. >> we know these films. there have been cases of terrible accidents, for instance, involving harrison ford on the sets. there's huge amounts of insurance and protections put in on all of these sets but the humid tragedy is unbearable. this star filmmaker, apparently an immigrant.
9:16 am
hugely talented. a mother and wife. all of her life just snuffed out. well, thanks, thanks to both of you. obviously, a terrible, terrible story and a lot more reporting to be done. and a big boost. more options for the covid booster and does the mix and match approach provide the best protection? you're watching "andrea mitchell reports" on msnbc. nah, a stormy day. classical music plays. um uh, brass band, new orleans. ♪ ♪ she drives hands free... along the coast. make it palm springs. ♪ cadillac is going electric. if you want to be bold, you have to go off-script. experience the all-electric cadillac lyriq. so to accelerate growth, should all our it move to the cloud? well, it isn't right for everything. the cloud would give us more flexibility, but we lose control. should we stay, should we go?
9:17 am
♪ ♪ ♪ darling you got to let me know, ♪ ♪ should i stay or should i go? ♪ we have tons of data at the edge, but we have to act on it in real time. ♪ if i go there will be trouble ♪ and we need business insights across all our data silos, but how? ♪ so come on and let me know, ♪ ♪ should i stay or should i go now? ♪ ♪ should i stay or should i ♪ wait, we can stay and go. hpe greenlake is the platform that brings the cloud to us. and it'll accelerate our... our digital transformation? absolutely. ♪ should i stay or should i go now? ♪ ♪ ♪
9:18 am
and there you have it- ♪ should i stay or shoulwoah.o now? ♪ wireless on the most reliable network nationwide. wow. -big deal! ...we get unlimited for just 30 bucks.
9:19 am
sweet, i get that too and mine has 5g included. that's cool, but ours save us serious clam-aroonies. relax people, my wireless is crushing it. that's because you all have xfinity mobile with your internet. it's wireless so good, it keeps one upping itself. tens of millions of
9:20 am
americans are now eligible for booster shots after the cdc gave the green light thursday night to moderna and j&j boosters. and backed the mixing and matching of the vaccines on the "today" show earlier, cdc director have rochelle walensky backed that mixing and matching. >> the vast majority of people will probably select the original one and did well with. but if you go into a pharmacy, and they don't have the one you that originally got it's okay to get the vaccine. >> joining me now a senior scholar at the johns hopkins school and boomer agency of school of health. can you explain -- it's different for moderna and j&j. >> for moderna and pfizer, everybody over the age of 65, six months from their second
9:21 am
dose and also those above 18 to 64 who have a high-risk condition and people who are younger or have an occupational exposure. that's what moderna and pfizer, mrna vaccines. for everybody, who will received the j&j vaccine two months in the past. the j&j is a broader recommendation than moderna and pfizer, it's very confusing and hard for the general public to sift through all of that, but that's where it stands. >> and for people who got the one dose j&j, do you think it's better for them to get an mrna booster now that available to everybody, rather than a second j&j? >> i do think this is a promising way to really increase immunity that people got from the j&j vaccine. the j&j vaccine used a different
9:22 am
booster. and it's something if the j&j should think about getting, who got the j&j vaccine, to get boosted with an mrna. it's a way to mix the vaccines. >> just another mix and match question, if you got pfizer should you get the moderna, or vice versa? if you got moderna, get pfizer, completely mix it up or doesn't matter? >> moderna and pfizer both use the same technology. so i don't think there's great advantage to mixing pfizer and moderna. suppose you go to a drugstore and they don't have the one you have, it's okay to have that added version of that. these are all the same technologies, j&j and mrna vaccines are different technologies to stimulate parts of your immune system in different ways. >> we should also advise that it does take a couple weeks for any
9:23 am
of these vaccines to take full effect. so do it sooner rather than later. as well as anticipating thanksgiving holiday. what advice do you have? cooler weather, certainly a new variant in the uk as the weather is cooler with that variant it's a real problem there, but we're told it's not a problem here. how concerned are you about the approaching holiday season, colder weather, people indoors and possible, you know, another fall surge? >> i do think that as it gets colder, less sunny, less humid, people are going to start moving indoors. we have the vaccine and booster vaccines for those at high risk for severe infection. so, the best way to make your thanksgiving is safe is to have it with vaccinated people. to make sure everybody is vaccinated. and high-risk people have gotten boosters. if you can do things outdoors
9:24 am
that's great. it will be relatively safe for thanksgiving. but we have to remember, this is not going to go away. the goal for cases not translated to hospitalization, that's what the vaccine is for. >> and finally, before i let you go, we always look to have your expertise, your advice to families with children 5 to 11 years olds. we go back to dr. fauci, beginning of november, possibly a couple weeks from now, that is going to be in final approval, final use authorization for those kids. some parents, even those who are not anti-vaxxers who are fully vaccinated themselves, may have reluctance, concerns, about such young children getting the vaccine. >> this appears to be a safe and effective vaccine in that age group. based on completely new trials with a different dosing regimen, one-third the dose. in terms of efficacy, i think if you look at children, yes, they are spared from the severe
9:25 am
consequences of the disease. but the fact is covid is such a disruptive event for a child that they're not able to go to school and participate in activities and spread to other children. the vaccine is one tool that they use to get their lives back. and one vaccine that parents take advantage of when it becomes available. but to ask questions of their pediatrician. and people trust their pediatrician, ask questions. and i think you will be reassured because there's so much good data on these vaccines. >> that's such an important confidence builder and it's so important for grandparents and parents to be fully protected and not have unvaccinated children bringing something home that they may be asymptomatic, but it could, you know, could continue to spread the virus. thank you so much, thanks have a great weekend. >> thank you. and in contempt, the house recommending criminal contempt for steve bannon as republican
9:26 am
leaders again side with donald trump. you're watching "andrea mitchell reports" on msnbc. ♪ there are beautiful ideas that remain in the dark. but with our new multi-cloud experience, you have the flexibility you need to unveil them to the world. ♪
9:27 am
9:28 am
the house voted thursday to recommend that trump ally steve bannon be prosecuted for criminal contempt of congress for refusing to comply with subpoenas from the january 6th select committee. every democrat in the house along with nine republican members voted in favor of referring bannon to the justice department for possible prosecution. committee vice chair liz cheney urging her former lawmakers to remember the insurrection. >> there are people in this chamber right now who were evacuated with me and with the rest of us on that day, during that attack. people who now seem to have forgotten the danger of the moment, the assault on the constitution, the assault on our congress. >> joining me now, former congressman joe crowley,
9:29 am
democrat from new york who is a member of nancy pelosi's leadership and a former republican congressman no longer affiliated with the republican party. so, joe, it's up to the justice department to decide what to do next. did the house make the point that it's not going to tolerate people who don't comply? is this really a warning to other potential witnesses? >> i think they did make that point, i think the chairman along with the speaker, and the pageantry to go along with it, the signing of that resolution sent really a message, don't scoff congress. i was disappointed it wasn't unanimous, quite frankly. i think this is not a republican or democratic issue. anyone who refuses to comply to a congressional sum are to face criminal charges. that's the bottom line.
9:30 am
>> david, there are nine republicans, either that's nine more than you'd expect or maybe fewer than you'd expect, one of them, nancy mace from georgia was saying she only did it because she expects they won't take the majority and she wants to be able to subpoena joe biden for all of the terrible things he's done, according to her. >> yeah, andrea, i think there's a reason a lot of americans look at how republicans voted for yesterday, and but for those other eight republicans see it as a very unpatriotic vote on behalf of republicans. look, the federal federal government, the doj they have charged 700 individuals for crimes committed on that insurrection. and the bottom line is steve bannon has information about the activities about that today and about donald trump's possible role in those activities.
9:31 am
and yet, he does not want to share that with the united states congress. i cannot think of any greater affront to the country than to hide information related to our security. and republicans in the house yesterday backed him up. they are good at hiding the information that bannon and trump might have. a very unpatriotic day for republicans in the house yesterday. >> so, david, "the new york times" is reporting that a prominent washington lobbyist very close to minute majority leader kevin mccarthy is warning that they have to choose between working for congresswoman liz cheney and enforcing it. >> you know washington very well, what you're seeing politics of political control, political power in washington. you're not seeing the politics of conviction of kevin mccarthy and his colleagues where the rank and file are desperate to return to the majority in the house.
quote
9:32 am
liz cheney and the group speaking deserve the accolades in the house. but they are in the minority, liz cheney, adam kinzinger, those are not the voices representative of today's gop. it's the voice of kevin mccarthy, particularly in moments of silence, where he allows republicans to perform as they currently are. >> by the way, i just wanted to correct myself when i said -- excuse me -- hot tea. nancy mace, of course is from south carolina. the first district in the state state of south carolina and not from georgia. i did paraphrase her correctly in that, joe, she was completely against the basic principle of why they were voting against
9:33 am
steve bannon. i guess she was saying it was for the reason that the house of representatives has to be available with subpoena power of the house has to be available for republicans that she says is going to take the house back. but really it's the issue of the house of representatives which was attacked. and separation of powers. and the legal authority at the house. joe. >> i think, you know, the fragile nature of our democracy, our republic, is based now on the premise that we're all playing by the same rule book. whether it's democrats, republicans. and when some of this scoffing of congress, someone is humiliating congress as steve bannon is doing, we expect that both democrats, republicans, patriots stand up to protect the integrity of the congress. those nine, regardless of what their reasoning, and i -- i applaud them all doing this, even if for holding democrats in
9:34 am
the future accountable. look, they're all going to pay some political price. liz cheney probably top of the list of that. and i think when you see happening now, republicans are rallying around kevin mccarthy and other republicans against her. >> okay. thank you very much. joe crowley, thanks david jolly. we have breaking news from the supreme court on that controversial abortion law. nbc news' correspondent pete williams with details. >> they've taken challenges on sb 8 that banned abortion on six weeks of pregnancy. the courtological hear a straight-up challenge to the constitutionality of this law. that's the lawsuit that was provided by abortion providers in texas. that's the case that the supreme court declined in early september, to act on, to put it on hold. so the supreme court is now saying it will hear that case
9:35 am
november 1st. so it's acting with amazing speed here. it's going to hear a constitutional challenge to texas' sb8 on november 1. and on the same day, the supreme court will also hear that the federal government has brought against sb8. and the question in that case is not so much the constitutionality of the law, but the question of whether the federal government even has the legal right to sue texas over the law. the question that it's limited to is this one. may the u.s. bring suit in federal government and obtain injunctive or relief against the judges, state court clerks or officials are prohibited parties to provide it from being enforced. the way it's being worded that way, that's what the texas judge, judge pitman initially does, when he issued an order blocking sb8.
9:36 am
for now, sb8 can continue to be enforced. and the supreme court also says it's going to defer action on the federal request to put a hold on sb8 until it hears this oral argument. so, it's the -- the only noted opinion here that goes along with this is sonia sotomayor. she says the court is are certainly right to act quickly to take this case. but sheization the supreme court should put sb8 on hold. and acts to protect these women from grave and irreparable harm. and offers cold comfort for texas women seeking abortion care who are entitled to relief now. so, andrea, the supreme court has acted with unusual speed. they don't usually take a case this fast but on november 1, they're going to hear challenges on the law itself. and the question of whether the
9:37 am
federal government can even sue texas. >> pete, let me drill down on that for a moment. you point out is the unusual speed. they consider it unusual speed to november 1 hear arguments. that doesn't mean they're going to have a decision anytime soon. and meanwhile as justice sotomayor points out, this law is still in effect, in contrast to what the federal judge had done in overruling the fifth circuit there. so, all of those women whose pregnancies who are now pregnant and have to go out of state if they are, you know, in emergent situation or in their view, medically or for whatever reason, there's no turning back. >> yeah, i think you're right to point out that the supreme court has vastly accelerated the time it takes to get a case before the court and get it argued. but that doesn't mean that the court's going to expedite its decision on when -- and remember, now, there are going to be three abortion cases. this is really the super abortion term for this court.
9:38 am
because you're going to have the constitutionality of this texas law. you're going to have the question of whether the federal government can sue when states do something like this. which is to say, we're not going to make it illegal. we're going to make other people sue to enforce this law. then, of course, the straight-up, full-up challenge to roe v. wade in the case in mississippi that will be argued in december. so, you're right to say, it's going to be a long time before we get these decisions in these three important cases. >> and just to indicate, they've had plenty of time with the mississippi case. that's been briefed. they're having oral arguments december 1st. >> right. >> so, you could have a decision come down in the mississippi case, if it was a decision to basically overturn roe v. wade that would also apply to the texas case, even though that case say newer case. if they invalidate roe v. wade
9:39 am
and the mississippi case and the decision, it's all over. >> well, i think it's not all over. i would say, that's certainly right, these two are interrelated. because if there is no constitutional right to abortion, if that's the finding, then that puts the texas law in a completely different light because the federal government's argument here is that texas can't deprice women of a constitutional right without giving them the ability to challenge that in court. the question is that will leave the question in the federal case that when states do something like this, can -- on enforcing any law, can the federal government sue them over this? and that's an important question to be resolved but it goes well beyond the question of abortion. you know, it's very possible that the supreme court won't -- mississippi and to some extent texas now, are -- they're both certainly asking the supreme court to say, look, there is no constitutional right to abortion. roe v. wade was wrongly decided.
9:40 am
there's a possibility that the court will do that. it's also possible the court won't go that far and say, you know what, in mississippi cutting abortion off after 15 weeks is not an undue burden because most abortions are performed before that anyway. so that's a possible outcome that would not directly affect the texas case. but these are all interrelated and for the reasons you pointed out i think we have to wait a long time before we get the decision. >> thank you so much. and joining us now, pete, you set the stage. joining us by phone is ms nbc news legal analyst melissa murray. once a judge law clerk. melissa, your interpretation to why the court is taking this so quickly. november 1st, very rapid indeed with them. >> well, i think we can't overlook the past couple of weeks where the court has really
9:41 am
taken a battering in terms of public opinion. we've seen the justices head out to disclaim the idea that they're part of it. and i think that's largely why the public was outraged by the prospect of a law that is greatly unconstitutional, given the current precedence going into effect in texas and people in texas with their constitutional rights. so i think the court heeded some of those pressures. some of them certainly coming from inside. justice sotomayor's very point dissent in the last case, the last decision from september 1st rings true here. and they had to do something. obviously, they have not gone as far as some people would like to see them go in enjoining the law. but this is a very aggressive briefing schedule that sets this up on november 1st before they would take up the mississippi case that is perhaps less urgent now, given everything that's happened with texas. >> indeed. we should point out texas is six
9:42 am
weeks, no abortions as early as six weeks into a pregnancy, when many, many. women do not know when they're pregnant. of course, this impacts women who have less means, can't travel easily to adjacent states more than anyone else in one of the largest states. so the distance is that people has to travel even for the facilities that are available are enormous. melissa murray, thank you so much. and thank you for pete williams for this breaking news from the supreme court. we'll be seeing a lot more about this throughout the day on msnbc. and back here in washington, senator joe manchin certainly frustrating some of his democrats if not the president, with the key biden priorities but how is it playing in west virginia? there the senator and former governor have an unique hold on his constituents including a huge number of trump supporters.
9:43 am
joining us now, cal perry. what are you hear from this constitt wants? >> reporter: i think those numbers are central to understanding joe manchin. this is a state that went for former president donald trump by 70%. as you said, joe manchin holding on to a narrow victory. he is a institution here. people seem to trust the process so that is a fine law. we had a chance to speak to one democratic member about the west virginia house about this time line. take a listen. so, joe manchin has a balancing act, right he's the head of the democratic party in west virginia, but our party is a shell of itself. so he's trying to cater to people who voted for trump. the red voters. >> reporter: now, make no mistake, nobody we spoke to thinks that joe manchin is going to blow up here. west virginia badly needs many
9:44 am
things in the deal, recently, infrastructure, preparing for bridges and roads that are dilapidated. there are many former coal mines, and that stuff is in the bill. the reconciliation, that's what joe manchin is pushing back here. it's a complicated issue, to understand what the holdup is from the president last night. either way, joe manchin has the support of the people, at least on the streets to waiting to see what's in the final bill. we heard that from a number of people, they want to wait to see what's in the final bill, as you know, andrea, it's changing hour by hour. >> indeed. and the irony is west virginia is a state that needs remediation on climate and many effects of fossil fuels more than any other states in the nation. thank you so much, good to see you, cal. joining us now, colorado democratic senator michael bennet. senator bennet, the speaker of
9:45 am
the house was rather optimistic today after her breakfast with the president. is it a deal or no deal, what is your prognosis? >> i'm very optimistic, andrea. we've got to get something done. i feel like this process has gone on two weeks longer than it should have. we should come to agreement and ask the american people to explain what we're trying to do after decades of spending $5.6 trillion for two wars in the middle east that lasted for 20 years. after decades of $5 trillion of tax cuts going to the wealthiest people in america, we're final on the cusp of making major investments for the american people and the infrastructure so i think that's long overdue. let's bring this to an end and let's get on with it. >> and when are you on the filibuster at this point, given what angus king told me and several other people before and after the vote on voting rights on wednesday?
9:46 am
that he's now open to a carveout for voting rights, hadn't been before that, necessarily. or at least talking for filibuster, the president certainly moved in that direction last night. >> yeah, i mean, i'd go farther than that, and i would go farther that. i think we make a mistake when we confuse mitch mcconnell's abuse or bastardization of the filibuster that has nothing to do with the senate. and we can reconstruct the rules and creates an opportunity for the senate to have a very extensive debate and offer amendments and try to change legislation, agency the senate is meant to do. then at the end of the day, 51 senators have to be able to make a decision. that is the way the senators designed the senate. it's not the way the senate works today. it's no longer the world's most deliberative body.
9:47 am
instead of delivering something which is pure wreckage which is what we have today, we ought be figuring out how to change the rules to make it work again. and i would say, andrea, the rise of totaliarian states around the world, in the 21stth century makes the question of what we do with the senate rules even more urgent than ever before. >> now as senator kaine was pointing out the other night, as you look at the 41 senators who voted to block even debate on voting rights, they represent something like 24% of the population of this country. because, again, the way this country has evolved. >> right. >> and you've got california having two senators and wyoming and montana having two senators. so what about gun control and police reform? how far would you go to change the filibuster or carve it out? >> well, i think we should change it -- i think we should
9:48 am
change it so we make the senate work. so, we give the minority the 65 opportunity to participate as i said so 51 senators get to makes a decision no matter what the issue is. right now, the problem with the senate is nothing gets done and then the american people can't hold anybody accountable for the fact that nothing has gotten done because the rules are so convoluted. that works very well for mitch mcconnell who really isn't trying to accomplish much except put right wing judges on the court and cut the taxes for the wealthiest people every now and now. he's not really trying to pass climate change legislature or trying to deal with voting rights or guns. i don't think we should do it -- i accept that if the only place we can get to caucus is we should do it for voting rights. i certainly would be there to change it for voting rights but i think we should do it more broadly. because we've got to have a functioning democracy here.
9:49 am
and the filibuster as you're pointing out doesn't create a functioning democracy, because it compounds the problems of having a senate that's so focused on some of the smallest populations in the country. we can do better than that. we can honor their needs and their constitutional right to participate in the process, while still being able to make decisions at the end of the day. >> i want to also ask you about climate, because there's a new report from the risk intelligence and analysis assessment that is warning the white house that climate change is a major national security threat. the key pillar of the president's program, the clean energy program is going to be dropped because of opposition from senator manchin. you come from a state that has the most glorious environment, i as a child loved to ride horses and went to school. there can be nothing more
9:50 am
beautiful than the colorado rockies as far as i'm concerned. how do you feel about this? >> first of all, come back to colorado, we'll take you anytime for as long as you want to be there. >> thank you. >> but let me tell you how i feel about it, we spent a good part of the in our state and come to colorado, move to colorado so they can see the in the. because of the smoke from california, we weren't able to see it. the colorado river is at a vanishingly small flow at this point. as a result of that, arizona is going to have to cut back on it water this year. we had mud slides that closed i-70 day after day after day. you know, seriously diminishing the economy on the western slope of colorado. so these issues are here today as a result of climate change. they are affecting our economy in colorado today. they're affecting our culture today. i've had these conversations with joe manchin. several times a number of times,
9:51 am
and we just have to keep pushing here. i mean -- and then on top of everything else, you and i were talking about the not surprising analysis from dodd and our intelligence community that climate change is a national security threat. it's a global security threat. when we see people going hungry because of climate change, when we see seaways changing because of climate change, when we see people refugee crises being provoked because of climate change, the world has to act, and the world cannot act without the leadership of the united states of america. and that's why we got to get it sorted out here. >> well, thank you so much for your wisdom on all of this. it's really appreciated. >> thanks for having me. good to see you. >> you too. and one nation still divided. schools now the battlefield for race relations. a sneak peek at the new peacock
9:52 am
documentary exploring how our children learn about race and the impact far beyond the classroom. that's next on andrea mitchell reports, msnbc. a mitchell ports, msnbc pnc bank believes that if your phone can help you track your pizza come on, cody. where are you, buddy? then your bank should help you track your spending. virtual wallet® is so much more than a checking account. its low cash mode feature gives you at least 24 hours of extra time to help you avoid an overdraft fee. okay, he's gotta be close. he's six blocks in the other direction. make a left, make a left, make a left! he made a right again. virtual wallet® with low cash mode from pnc bank. one way we're making a difference. - [announcer] at southern new hampshire university, low cashwe never stopc bank. celebrating our students. from day one to graduation to your dream job, that's why we're keeping your tuition low for the 10th year in a row. - [student] the affordability and the quality of education, it can be enough to change your life. - [announcer] as a nonprofit university, we believe in making college more affordable for everyone.
9:53 am
- southern new hampshire university, it was just amazing experience. - [announcer] find your degree at snhu.edu.
9:54 am
growing up in a little red house, on the edge of a forest in norway, there were three things my family encouraged: kindness, honesty and hard work. over time, i've come to add a fourth: be curious. be curious about the world around us, and then go. go with an open heart, and you will find inspiration anew.
9:55 am
viking. exploring the world in comfort. a new documentary on the civil war airing this sunday here on msnbc takes a different look at the ways that the civil war is portrayed and taught in america's schools. the director of civil war explaining why she wanted to tell this story. >> america is kind of like a big family that tore itself apart during the civil war. and in order to make peace, we told ourselves a certain story about it. and for a long time, we had trouble telling the difference between that story and the truth. >> joining me now is civil rights attorney david henderson, also a former prosecutor. it's good to see you again. this documentary is about what we tell ourselves about our history. so let's listen to a clip from the film.
9:56 am
>> no one on this civilian side, on the cob fed rat presidency was ever forced to concede and repudiate what they believed. and we allowed a group of people that waged an armed inrur section against the government to build statue to their heros. that has kept it alive. we have never solved the core problem of the civil war. >> how does the misinformation about the way the civil war is still taught distort ore perception of race in america today. >> two things i think come up. they all merge around one central theme. that is emotional energy is like any other type. it doesn't go away, but it can take different forms. pain for not acknowledging suffering can turn into hostility. at a time we're having so many debates about the way history is being taught in school and as we're picking the jury based on
9:57 am
an 1863 citizens arrest law, i think it's critically important how we handle these types of discussions moving forward. >> also when we saw the confederate flag on january 6th in statuary hall going through the halls of congress, we realize that the symbols of the civil war and of the insurrection of that insurrection are now being appropriated and misappropriated today. >> and i think in modern times, andrea, back since the civil rights era, that symbol has been misappropriated. you saw it january 6th and in the front of the mcmichaels truck when they gunned down ahmaud arbery. you can't fix what you don't acknowledge. oftentimes heritage -- until we deal with the impact they have, we can't move past them.
9:58 am
>> well, david henderson, this is a hint of what we are to see. "civil war". airing this sunday at 10:00 eastern on msnbc. this week we've been remembering colin powell. he began his career as a soldier, statesman, but then an educator as well. we spoke to some of the students at ccny at the colin powell school just this week. >> he's not gone. he's here. he left us a legacy. >> reporter: he emigrated from sin gal and met powell at his undergraduate graduation. >> last time i had a handshake with him was 2019. we have a selfie together. he asked me what i wanted to do. i wanted to serve like he did. >> we found that sense of service among all students, rachel is a senior considering a
9:59 am
career in law. >> this was my first choice school. this school uniquely fosters public service to the community. >> powell's passing came as a shock, especially since the students watched an online talk held by the general just last month. >> most of you, i think, are not old enough to have gone through -- >> he was inspirational. i feel like yes, we mourn him today, but he lives in all of our hearts, and beyond the school walls. and i think yeah, he's an inspiration. >> wendy is a senior and hopes to join the foreign service. her parents are from nigeria. she's a first generation american, like a lot of ccny's 12,000 students, just like powell. >> for me, i would say as someone who is also first generation, like, i'm in college and doing this for my parents. like, my mom couldn't even go to
10:00 am
college, and even listening to him in september about history and history making background, that was so inspirational. because it goes to show that it is possible. >> a senior studying climate policy. >> it's about colin powell's legacy. he wants his legacy to be inherited the our generation, and i think it's our task to pass it forward to our children and grandchildren. >> carrying that legacy, a future lawyer, diplomat, policy maker, and military officer. >> and that indeed was his greatest legacy. thank you. this is andrea mitchell reports. "mtp daily "starts right now. if it's friday, the white house tries to get back on track after falling poll numbers and party disagreements over

101 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on