tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC November 12, 2021 10:00pm-11:00pm PST
record. and today, almost 125 years after his conviction that board voted unanimously to do the right thing. the pardon now goes to the governor for approval. and finally, justice that has been a long time coming. that does it for us tonight, rachel will be back on monday. >> tonight on all in. >> all hell is gonna break loose tomorrow, all i can say is strap in. stephen k. bannon indicted by federal grand jury. >> there is no doubt that mr. bannon knows far more. >> tonight what we know about bannon's surrender, what we know about the charges he faces and what this means for the investigation. the other witnesses attempting to stonewall the committee. >> you cannot blow off a subpoena in america. >> then, the jaw-dropping you evidence of donald trump's complete disregard for the life of his own vice president. >> you heard those chants, that was terrible, i mean it was,
you know. >> while the people were very angry. >> and wait until you see the new all-time low for republican propaganda on fox news, when all in starts right now. >> good evening from new york, i am chris hayes. today for the second time in just two years, steve bannon has been indicted. the top advisor to the ex president has been indicted on criminal charges, it's his second. in his first he was charged with fraud-ing donors, ripping off the very mug of voters who backed his and trump's calls to drain the swamp. he got away without one when he was pardoned by trump during his final day of office, last day that he was there. and that came after bannon help planned january six. bannon once again finds himself to subject to a federal
indictment, after a jury charge him with two counts of contempt of congress, one for his refusal to testify before the committee, investigating the january 6th insurrection. the other for refusing to turn over records. bannon was subpoenaed back in some temper, ordering him to produce documents by october 7th, and appear for a deposition on october 14th. bannon basically ignored the committee which led the house to hold him in contempt three weeks ago, then referring him to the justice department. and for the last two and a half weeks, that has been it. nobody knew if attorney general merrick garland was pursuing the matter. today, all that changed. the indictment point out that bannon who asserted executive privileges was quote a private citizen, for proximate lee seven months in 2017, more than three years before the events of january six. bannon was employed in the executive branch of the u.s. government as the chief strategist and counselor to the president. after departing the white house in 2017, bannon did not work
again in any executive branch or federal government position. it also cites a quote from his podcast noted in the subpoena from january 5th, the day before the insurrection, making quite a prophetic prediction about what would happen at the capitol on the sixth. >> all hell is going to break loose tomorrow, just understands this, all hell is gonna break loose. it's going to be moving, it's going to be quick. >> law enforcement source tells nbc, news bannon is expected to surrender himself on monday, and appear in court that afternoon. he could face up to a year in prison, and 100,000 dollar fine. it's hard to overstate the importance of this indictment, both the select committee and the justice department. the last prosecution of a contempt referral was back in 1983 when a former reagan epa official refused to testify during a super funded investigation, though her case, we should note, ended in an
acquittal. the states here though seem higher. bannon's argument for refusing to comply's based on a bogus claim of executive privilege is. he doesn't have a leg to stand on legally. the timing is crucial here as, well this timing couldn't be more fitting. this indictment was released the same day that donald trump's chief of staff, former north carolina congressman marc meadows was scheduled to have a deposition with the committee. they were prepared to receive him, and he was a no-show. yesterday his lawyer, a guy we told you before name george, who served as acting attorney general released a statement telling the committee quote, mr. meadows remains under the instructions of former president trump to respect to long-standing principles of executive privilege is. in appears the courts will have to resolve this conflict. committee chair bennie thompson wrote back with this, the select committee will view his failure to appear at the
deposition as noncompliance. -- this could result in a referral from the house of representative and -- for criminal charges. that is the process that played out and happen to steve bannon today. he was indicted for defying the committee. you want to know what he was doing just hours before his indictment was handed out? he was on his podcast spreading more insurrectionist propaganda, talking about the november 3rd movement which is this crazy effort to audit all 50 states. >> but this movement is so important. everything else flows from their. how they did the big steal, until you understand it, see how it was done, break the pieces of part, and then are able to hold people accountable and figure would action comes next, my thing is that we must decertify these electors. it is a requirement that every
patriot, and from every patronage gray, from every generation down demands of us. demands of us. to do this. >> man, say what you will, he is a talented broadcaster. he is a congressional reporter for the new york times who has been covering the fight over the january six committee subpoena, and luke, this isn't a norm is development today. how did it come about? >> right, well, there was a big question about whether america garland would accept this referral from the house to charge steve bannon, and really the house committee that is investigating the attack was very concerned that if there were no charges here, they would have no teeth whatsoever. and everybody in mr. trump's orbit would start defying their subpoenas, so this was a big win for them today, it means that mr. bannon will either have to come in and testify and share all of these documents the committee wants from them, or he could face jail time, up
to a year in jail, one year on each count. it was a major development for the committee today and it does send a serious message that the committee has to be taken seriously and also that this change in the department of justice means that no longer will officials in the trump administration be able to defy congressional orders. >> yeah, that is a great point, i forget how many there were, but i think there were a few referrals somewhat similar to this, i don't know if there were criminal referrals but the referrals that happened in the previous administration with an attorney general, i there with jeff sessions or william barr, or whitaker that were essentially not pursued, it didn't go anywhere. >> yeah, for four years, the congress couldn't get anything out of the trump administration, bill barr in the later stages, he was saying where we aren't
going to participate with anything that they ask of us, this signals a big change and it means the committee is -- you know, steve bannon doesn't want to go to jail, he might have to come in. there is a long record, if you look back at cases in the 70s, 80s, 90s, many reluctant witnesses would eventually come in and sit down and testify once they realize the other option was spending some time behind bars, it does provide a powerful incentive for cooperation, you know, the committee is not a criminal committee so what they're asking for, to come in, to testify, to get documents as they investigated this, they would not be trying necessarily to throw them in jail if you were to come in and testify. >> right. >> but because he's refusing to, that opens him up to legal exposure. >> yeah the timing here with meadows is interesting just because that incentive point
you made there, the committee was worried that there would be a domino effect. but there is a kind of broader sense of a bunch of people who have been subpoenaed in the orbit and what they will do, we know meadows was quote unquote engaging with council, or whatever that came to heads with meadows at least. >> there are now three people, including bannon who have openly defined the committee, for good participates. his attorney had told the committee that he was searching through documents that he would potentially turn over to them, but ultimately when it came time to testify, when it came time to show up in person today he did not show and so they have written a warning letter to him and i would not be surprised if we see a committee vote coming up in the near future. his case is somewhat different
than steve bannon as he was in the white house at the time, steve bannon wasn't. there is another trump ally jeffrey clark who has refused to comply with the subpoena, he is a justice department lawyer and he has cited attorney client privilege is, and he did show up in person and gave them a letter. there are three main people here that have refused to comply while 150 have been talking to the committee. >> luke broad water has been covering, this thank you very much for joining us today. >> thank you. >> daniel goldman served as majority counsel in donald trump's first impeachment, he was assisting the u.s. attorney of new york and he joins me now. dan, how big a deal is this and what happens next? >> well it's a great deal, because rarely as you pointed out has something like this charged, this is a very
influential person in trump world as you just heard from some of those rantings in his podcast today. it is a big deal, in many ways it is a big deal because merrick garland is drawing the line in the sand saying i won't be so afraid of partisan political brush back or blow back, i am going to reinstate the rule of law and that is what was missing in the trump administration, and that is what we are facing with all of these insurrectionists and these accusations that continue, to this day, about the steal, the big steel and all that stuff. i think the message is significant for steve bannon but in many respects, the message is even more significant for our institutions defending congress and defending the rule of law which we desperately need in this country.
>> so on bannon's case, he really seems to -- flagrant disregard, he doesn't show, a pea says, he has his lawyer writes a letter saying go stuff it. he has no real plausible claim. he's a podcaster who was buddies with the president and there is no cultural claim of executive privilege here, and so given that, he's in this specific category, literally what happens, he turns himself in a prosecution gets mounted, is he gonna try to mount a defense on executive privilege is grounds? i don't understand how that works >> right, he will appear on monday, her probably pleaded not guilty and they will go through the pretrial discovery process and then there may be motions and there may be a trial, this trial is not going to happen next week, it will probably be in a few months before the trial actually begins.
so, that is what will happen, in bannon's case. one thing to note, bannon is not going to be compelled to turn over the documents or testify by this prosecution. this prosecution may simply put him in jail. it doesn't compel him to present the documents. i think the strategy that is going on right now in the house is very interesting, they are pursuing the documents through this case that is going through the d.c. courts, they are doing is those documents are probably very similar to any documents that bannon or meadows would have, they are pursuing the documents in courts to that case, and they are pursuing the witnesses with this contempt proceeding and another proceeding against meadows. i think though they need to be careful about charging meadows with contempt of congress for the documents because he does have a colorful claim about
executive privilege is. he is really not in a position to adjudicate whether trump's assertion or instructions to him are valid or not, that's not where mark meadows stands. but, and this is what is important, he has to show up. he cannot just simply not show up for testimony. he controlled protested mooney and claim executive privileges, but if he doesn't show up for testimony that is a clear cut case of contempt of congress. if i were the house would continue pursuing these witnesses with contempt while you're pursuing the documents on the other side through the courts, and ultimately you get the documents to the courts and the case is moving quickly and you are punishing in setting a mark in the sand that if you will defy us, you will be prosecuted. >> right in the third individual that is speaking at which is jeffrey clark the head of the civil division in the
last moments of the trump administration, essentially plotted with the president for a lack of a better phrase. he did that. he came, he showed up and inserted a lot of privileges which has the committee frustrated, but that is one step where he complied more than meadows. that's right and jeffrey clark understands that you can't defy simply not show up, but he can raise whatever arguments he wants. and those may be legitimate, they may not be, but that's where the courts have to come in and traditionally what's happened in the last congress is it just takes a really long time. so hopefully the courts have learned their lessons as the district court has in issuing a very quick ruling, and let's hope the d.c. circuit follows and moves very quickly. >> all right, daniel goldman, it was great, very illuminating. it's important to note, these two indictments against steve bannon, we're not a foregone conclusion, there is real
question over whether department of justice would pursue charges, they did, and it's a critical development for the january six committee. as it serves as a bright flash and warning sign to any other witness the tries to pull the same start and. but it doesn't mean for those who already have? that's next. for thos who already have that's next. that's next. (other money manager) so you do it because you have to? (naj) no, we do it because it's the right thing to do. we help clients enjoy a comfortable retirement. (other money manager) sounds like a big responsibility. (naj) one that we don't take lightly. it's why our fees are structured so we do better when our clients do better. fisher investments is clearly different. frequent heartburn? not anymore. the prilosec otc two-week challenge is helping people love what they love again. just one pill a day. 24 hours. zero heartburn. because life starts when heartburn stops. take the challenge at prilosecotc dot com. all hell is going to break
approaching some form of accountability not yet seen for those who batted down trump's unprecedented attack on american dot moxie. top advisor steve bannon who is knee-deep in the planning of the insurrection, as you just, heard has been indicted on two counts of contempt from congress, refusing to comply with the -- this is all happening on the day that former trump steve staff mark meadows was supposed to testify before the committee but just refuse to show up. congressman joe neguse is a democrat representing colorado second district, he formally served as an impeachment matter in the second impeachment of donald trump, over his role in inciting the insurrection. it's good to have you congressman, what's your reaction to this development? >> well, good to be with you chris, i think it's an incredibly important day for a public, certainly for the separation of powers and congressional authority, and for the rule of law. i think the line prosecutors
for the doj, made the right call, the subpoena that was issued to mr. bannon, both a documentary subpoena and the testimony subpoena, they were lawful, they were duly issued, and mr. bannon chose to willfully disobey and defy that subpoena. and i think that today's decision the decision by the department of justice in the grand jury to proceed with the indictment, certainly sends a compelling indictment to each and every witness ever out there. that witnesses can no longer ignore congress with impunity. which really became the norm, in the course of the trump administration. you have the executive branch and a wide variety of individuals taking steps to disrupt congressional investigations at every turn so the fact that this indictment is now moving forward is a really important step. it's also, as you said,, important for us not to understate just the gravity of the decision. the last time that a decision of this nature was pursued by a grand jury in the context of a criminal contempt citation in
congress, was before as born, in 1983. so clearly, this is a big deal, and i'm hopeful that it will have a persuasive impact on witnesses to come, who are subpoenaed by the committee. >> i want to read, just what the committee statement put out, by the chair and vice chair. steve bannon's indictment should send a clear message to anyone who thinks they can ignore the select committee, or try to stonewall our investigation, no one is above the law, we will not hesitate to use the tools at our disposal to get the information we need. i think this idea of no one been above the law which is wet that dangle and said in this previous block, i mean, what we saw during the trump years was these kind of, these sort of gray spaces between law, norman, custom, they tend to guide the constitutional structure of inter branch accommodation just completely fall apart. and in some ways, a contempt
referral is an exact example of that, falling apart, but it's sort of the least bad option it seems to me. >> that's precisely right, i mean look, during the course of the trump administration you had norm after norm really eviscerated, and perhaps the most salient example of that was this notion that witnesses could essentially avoid subpoenas entirely, and willfully disobey them and engage in total defiance with impunity and with no consequence, i think the fact that this indictment has been filed, will disabused people of no notion moving forward. obviously, the decision also underscores the topic that you and i have discussed previously, which is that congress shouldn't have to rely on the executive branch to enforce its prerogatives. at the end of the day, article one provides for the congress, it's the first branch of government. and the notion that it has to rely on the department of justice to execute a contempt citation, to me, underscores the need for reform on the congressional side, of course
inherent contempt is something that other members of the committee of proposing the path. this is something we should proceed into the future. >> well, there is a broader question of implication here, which is that both parties will be in different situations, in terms of which offices they occupy. whether that's the white house with an opposition congress, there's sort of institutional branch equities to protect here. and then there is, sort of, partisan possibilities. i saw jim jordan threatening today, hey we're gonna come after ron klain, the chief of staff, and jake sullivan in the national security adviser. now, under a long-standing executive privilege jurisprudence, it would be extended from that. that is squarely in the executive privilege sort of basket, but i guess if i wonder what you think of that threat, and what it means going forward. >> yeah, i would say chris, i don't think that particular
seriously. look, at the end of the day, the purported indications of privilege that we are talking about here by someone like steve bannon, who has you said is a private citizen who has not worked at the white house literally, for years. who decided to completely disregard the subpoena, not just come and testify and ultimately invoke their legitimate contempt at refusing to discuss certain subjects, but not showing up at all. that's the kind of defiance comparative to the absolute defines invoked by various officials during the trump administration, that i don't think our constitutional order can stand. you have very extreme examples, of course in the case of mr. bannon, i think in the case of some other witnesses that have been subpoenaed by the january six committee, and look, i didn't have the day, i'm always going to fall on the side of congressional oversight. and the idea of the separation of powers has to be maintained, and to do that, it means that the congress has a congress institutional duty to engage in oversight, we ought to protect it.
>> yeah, i mean you are overlooking the podcast of privilege, the james madison put into the constitution, it's an important protection for people that talking to get microphones. congressman joe neguse, thank you for joining us tonight. >> good seeing you, chris. when we come back, donald trump on tape defending the violent rioters who chanted hang mike pence during the attack on the capital, that's next. pence during the attack on the capital, that's next capital, that's next is all wrong. so we made a healthier song. for some folks it's like baby steps. maybe it's a jump or eating something green. or taking mom to get that vaccine. ♪ healthier means bringing stuff to the folks ♪ ♪ that really need it. ♪ ♪ like millie's meds straight to her door or care at home. ♪ ♪ believe it. ♪ ♪ sometimes it's healthier to laugh. ♪ ♪ other times it's healthier to cry. ♪ ♪ we'll work through it together. ♪ ♪ when it works for you, drop on by. ♪ ♪ 'cause healthier happens easy ♪ ♪ when you just give people access. ♪ ♪ for bob it meant admitting ♪
♪ that he needed reading glasses. ♪ ♪ healthier comes in all these ♪ ♪ different shapes and sizes. ♪ ♪ and ages and races and faces and eye-ses. ♪ ♪ and caring for them all means ♪ ♪ we're doing healthier right. ♪ ♪ so, let's do it all together people, ♪ ♪ 'cause this is what healthier looks like. ♪ fries or salad? ♪ so, let's do it all together people, ♪ salad! good choice! it is. so is screening for colon cancer. when caught in early stages, it's more treatable. hey, cologuard! hi, i'm noninvasive and i detect altered dna in your stool to find 92% of colon cancers even in early stages. early stages. it's for people 45 plus at average risk for colon cancer, not high risk. false positive and negative results may occur. ask your provider if cologuard is right for you. (all) to screening! bogeys on your six, limu. they need customized car insurance from liberty mutual so they only pay for what they need. woooooooooooooo...
on the january 6th front. not only do we have the indictment of steve bannon but also we have a remarkable excerpt from an interview with the ex president, in which he says he was unperturbed by the mob threatening to hang mike pence and even justify their actions. an incredibly damning piece of audio but before i play it, i want to share with you this recurring thought that i have to say is haunting the since the insurrection. what if the crowd at the capitol had been successful?
what if the group of rioters who had smashed windows, trying to get to the speakers lobby, a crowd that included ashley babbitt in that awful tragic moment, what if they had gotten through? what if they had come face to face with members of congress? the people that they were told had stolen the election from them. what would have happened there with the implements they're using to bag down the doors? what if they had assaulted or kidnapped or killed them? what if they had managed to find mike pence, who you may recall, it was rushed out of the senate chamber as the mob approached, with his family, and as we know now from reporting by jonathan carl, hid out in an underground parking garage, where he read donald trump's tweet accusing him of not having the courage to do what should have been done. as this was happening, and the mob was terrorizing the capital, chanting the words, hang mike pence, and a gallows was on the grounds, wouldn't they have gone to the vice president?
what if they surrounded him and made good on their threat and what if some awful violence had ensued? it is not a wildly preposterous thought. mike pence was hunker down in a secret location for a reason. there were thousands of insurrectionists over running the capitol, literally saying they wanted to murder the vice president. what would american politics look like if that had happened? and here is the really, really dark thing. would have changed anything? would anything be different in the aftermath if the fruition frenzy had come to fruition? i don't know the answer, but i despair to think that maybe not a lot would change. i don't think it would have changed donald trump much at all. just listen to how unbothered he is by what did happen as he told jonathan karl in an interview he did for his upcoming book the trail. >> were you worried about mike pence, his safety? >> no, i heard that he was in
good shape. no. because i had heard he wasn't very good shape. >> but -- you heard those chants, they were terrible. >> he could have -- well, the people were very angry. >> they were saying hang mike pence. >> it's common sense, john. it's common sense that you are supposed to protect. if you know a vote is fraudulent, right, how can you pass on a fraudulent vote to congress? >> i mean, people, it's common sense. that people are very angry. yes, they said they wanted to murder the vice president. you know, he had a point. karl also reports in his new book that he liked what he saw unfolding on january 6th, even boasted about the size of the crowd. and for trump, he is a desperately insecure and small man, for him this was a source of power. the menace of the gallows -- the point, it's not a byproduct,
it's the point. a form of coercion. the threat of mob violence is being cultivated on the right on purpose, a way of exerting political power. because the worst did not happen on january 6th, it is hard to get your head around this, hard to think about what's success for those people right there would look like. because it is so incomprehensible. but they were being honest in the threats that they made that day and so is donald trump in this new interview. day and he thinks it is fine and deserved, justified, understandable, -- threatening to break the neck of his vice president. what does this mean for the case against trump and the pence cooperation with the january six committee? that's next. that's next. (tiger) this is the dimension of imagination. ♪
♪ with clean, fresh ingredients, panera's new chicken sausage and pepperoni flatbread is a mouthwatering explosion of yes. craft? yes! heartiness? yes! living life to the flavor-fullest? heck yes. panera. live your yes. now $1 delivery. my auntie called me. she said uncle's had a heart attack. i needed him to be here. your heart isn't just yours. protect it with bayer aspirin. be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen.
wondering what actually goes into your multi-vitamin. at new chapter. its innovation organic ingredients and fermentation. fermentation? yes, formulated to help your body really truly absorb the natural goodness. new chapter. wellness well done. nicorette knows, quitting smoking is freaking hard. you get advice like: just stop. go for a run. go for 10 runs! run a marathon. instead, start small. with nicorette. which can lead to something big. hang mike pence, hang mike start stopping with nicorette. pence -- >> were you worried about him during the siege? >> now, i thought he was well
protected. i heard he was in good shape. because i had heard he was in very good shape. >> but you heard those chants, that was terrible. >> he could have -- well, the people were very angry. >> because it's common sense. -- >> -- >> if you know about is fraudulent, right, how can you pass on of raja learned vote to congress? ou pass on of raja le>> those two e recorded over a little bit over two months apart. donald trump had time to think about how he would respond, how he would respond to the hang mike pence chance at the capitol. yet when i asked he does not encourage trump to fake that he cared that his own vice president -- they were angry. pence did the wrong thing. basically, he had it coming. baand while it is shocking,
unprecedented in american history, i'm still surprised to hear trump say it. -- he's a writer for the new york times, has a piece out called men as a political tool, enters the republican mainstream. jonathan kate is a writer for new york magazine. his piece is on this latest audio, titled, trump defends insurrection is trying to hang mike pence has come since, the slow inevitable evolution of a former presidents pro riot rioters rhetoric. jonathan, let me start with you. i think it was pretty pro riot rhetoric from the beginning. i'm not sure how much evolution there has been. but this is probably the most forthright that i have heard since the day when he was obviously sort of defending it and whipping it up. >> i think the reason you have that reaction in a lot of people have that reaction is because we knew that he --
but the way i put it was that the music is the same but the words have changed. we don't realize that because we are listening to the music, not the words. what he said, a week after the insurrection is that it was a terrible, calamity, we are against violence and all forms. and then you want to try to show, i try to show in this piece that he takes steps towards justifying the riot. at first he was saying, well, they should be looking at these are the things that the democrats have done. and what about the election fraud. look at the election fraud. then he kind of gets to a place where, well, they need to write within reason. >> yeah, and that november 3rd was the real insurrection. >> yes. >> and the era of menace, i thought, lisa, the piece that you did with astead hearn in, was nice, and just the presence we have talked about on the show, it's a theme i've been
obsessed with. the presence of death threats, voicemails, that when the president targets you, when you are a republican member of congress, for opprobrium, for instance, you will have to hire security -- a young representative basically said he wanted to quit congress when he had a security guard escort him through the airport. how common and how present is this sort of background noise about violence in the lives of those serving in congress and republican politics? >> i don't think it is background ways at all. the level of threat, the number of threats in congress is on track to double this year. members frequently get these vicious threats and their voice mail boxes are full, they have things into their homes, put into their homes, against their family members. democratic congresswoman debbie dingell from michigan shared
some of these voice messages with me, and they are really vile. one time during the beginning of covid, when michigan was passing restrictions, on various activities, she came back to her home and there were men with assault weapon standing outside. this is something that is therefore very present in the lives of members of congress. it is present in our political rhetoric. part of what we have seen is what happened in january 6th and the aftermath, as jonathan described, was that you had former president trump laying a foundation for this kind of acceleration. if you believe, as much of the conservative base does, that the election was stolen, that provides you a platform to justify a lot of pretty radical, violent acts. so that's part of what we are witnessing right now. the rhetoric at those conservative events has grown extremely violent, there was talk of revolution and war and tyranny. these are words that are not tossed around lightly.
their words with serious meetings. >> yeah, i want to just read the reporting from debbie dingell, what happened to her, and i was pointed to that piece around men being outside with assault rifles. >> they ought to try you for treason, one caller screams, i hope your family dies. -- and that's important, lisa. this structure is built in a perverse way on a logical -- it follows from the premises. the premise is that the election was stolen and that the greatest crime in the history of american democracy was pulled off in front of your face, and the wrong person was put in office. and where that the case, they are storming the capital, it may be undertaken as a rational action in the face of what is a tyrannical regime.
to lisa's point, it also justifies extra democratic means of redress, if that is the case. >> that's exactly right, and trump is not always a lucid figure, to say the least. he was logical when he said it was common sense, saying it was just the lesson -- when this -- why would you sit there when this illegitimate president takes power? of course you would do something. >> and the notion of the fundamental illegitimacy and the notion that because it is illegitimate, what we need our extra constitutional and extra democratic means of redress, the permission structure then creates all sorts of flirtations in both word and indeed with these avenues that you document in the piece that are, you know, i cannot get over how much i hear between conservatives and the reaction of the things that i say about you our next, the civil war,
just wait what happens after the civil war -- a lot of violent fantasizing that has an increasingly mainstream place in the rhetoric. >> i i mean, look, that recording that you read from debbie dingell, that was the only portion you can read on air, that would get past sensors, and would be appropriate. this is vile stuff. it's important to think about this in the larger structure of the republican party. ou so it is about a third, plus or minus, of republicans, in various polls, when they are asked in different ways about whether violence could be justified. about a third of republican say that it is. and that's a shocking number. but what is happening outside of that number, right? >> yeah. >> and there are members of congress who sort of dally in this rhetoric, we saw with congressman gosar this past week but they are really at the
fringe in congress. and for all of this rain corps right now, it still has -- incivility. but there is this silence, they are worried about alienating this -- >> right -- >> so they don't stand up in the face of this violent rhetoric, and that frankly, allows it to flourish. >> yeah, that's well said. it is still, in congress, frowned upon to fantasize about murdering your colleagues. but it is also not something that you are going to rush to the microphones to condemn. lisa lerer and jonathan chafe, thank you. this sunday, msnbc will erode documentary, in the dark of the valley, exploring a nuclear accident in the los angeles valley area, covered up for decades, and its long term consequences. >> the field is -- i wouldn't say it's always in the front of my mind but it is
in the can consistently in the back of my mind, when i give my kids water. of myor give them a bat. in the back of my mind when i see a new kid diagnosed, the back of my mind when i see that that kid has passed away. >> you can watch in the dark of the valley, right here on msnbc, 10 pm eastern. fox news reaches new lows in their anti biden propaganda. the case of the vanishing hand, after this. after this hey google. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ (swords clashing) -had enough? -no... arthritis. here. new aspercreme arthritis.
full prescription-strength? reduces inflammation? thank the gods. don't thank them too soon. kick pain in the aspercreme. your record label is taking off. but so is your sound engineer. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. indeed instant match instantly delivers quality candidates matching your job description. visit indeed.com/hire
hello? gordon ramsay? matching your job description. this is a cold call! nfl teams are turning to cold with tide, will you? that will never work! if it works on nfl jerseys it'll work for you. seriously! just perfect! and it'll save up to $150 a year. and it's cold! so you will turn to cold? fine! i'll turn to cold! that guy needs to chill out! this was a cold call! as a dj, i know all about customization. that's why i love liberty mutual. they customize my car insurance, so i only pay for what i need. how about a throwback? ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty ♪ only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty ♪ it's another day. and anything could happen. it could be the day you welcome 1,200 guests and all their devices.
or it could be the day there's a cyberthreat. only comcast business' secure network solutions give you the power of sd-wan and advanced security integrated on our activecore platform so you can control your network from anywhere, anytime. it's network management redefined. every day in business is a big day. we'll keep you ready for what's next. do you think it's possible that comcast business powering possibilities.
today, fox news was caught red-handed committing one of the just gravest of all journalistic scenes sins, here in this business. deceptively editing a soundbite to make a politician say something they did not say. the clip came from a president joe biden gave for veterans day, we are he told a story about satchel page, legendary pitcher, he is remembered as one of the greatest pictures of all-time. due to segregation he did not get to pitch in the major leagues until he was 42. satchel page is one of the greatest players pitchers in what are known as the -- leagues. this is how president biden referred to him as the in the altered version version. >> i've adopted the great
pitcher -- he went on to be a great pitcher after jackie robinson -- >> biden stumbled a little, but it's clear what he is saying. listen. again >> i have adopted the attitude of the great -- pitcher in the -- league's, went on to be a great pitcher in the pros after jackie robinson, his name is satchel page. >> so fox news and it's the context out of the middle. when you listen, watch for where the hand goes, watch for the vanishing hand. when fox played it, it sounded like this. >> president biden facing backlash for a comment during his veterans day address, listen to this.
>> i've adopted the attitude of the picture, -- at the time, his name was satchel page. >> biden's choice of words, while referencing satchel page, landed him in hot water. the remark came while he was attempting to wish -- a happy birthday. that we did not go so well. >> it did not. >> so that was deceptively edited to make it sounds like biden was calling satchel page -- when that was clearly not what he said. so with this context gone, that's where you get the hands up, now fox news is the most -- the republican party has and it just sort of pumps lies. misinformation and constant agitated rage into the homes of millions of americans every single day. and in doing so, in just sort
of relentlessly hammering, it does have a real effect. the republican base, slash, fox news audience, naturally hated hillary clinton. they naturally hate kamala harris. an old white guy, joe biden, i think a -- project. they kept at. it pumping lies all day for more than a year, including whatever means, including straight-up deception. they have succeeded, they've taught their base to hate joe biden as well. joining me now, david plouffe, 2008 obama campaign manager, former adviser to president obama. he is here to discuss. first of all, that is, even by their standards, pretty agree just with the disappearing hand in the middle. [laughs] . to do that. how much of an effect in this sort of -- the space of american politics and the amorphous public opinion, how much effect is
that one network have? >> enormous. well, first of all, chris, you are smart to call this out. because i think we believe that there is no bottom at fox. this is a meaningful and dangerous moment. maybe it was a trial balloon. but this is a new front in their war. so yeah. i mean, they basically pollute up to probably a third of the electorate. and that third of the electorate spills over into maybe 40% of the country. it's not just fox. it's breitbart, it's unclear, which is such a sinister local influence. it is prayer university and epoch times, maybe some outlets your viewers don't know about, some of the most powerful on social media. so it's coordinated. and having gone through campaigns, we can hang as democrats in campaigns, because we have a lot of volunteers, we spend a lot of money, we have a lot of advertising. that goes away after the
election and fox and those other megaphones are still there. >> right, yeah. >> huge, enormous disadvantage. and it's structurally so unbalanced. >> yeah, that's interesting. it's also structurally imbalance because it really is -- it is so straight line propaganda. and it's also sort of determinately focus. the biden instances interesting to me, because i don't think there is the natural animus that, say, hillary clinton -- i mean, the vox base hated hillary clinton, this had been cultivated for decades. with biden there was less of that. and i think that it is wild to watch them successfully create rage at the man, essentially out of nothing other than she repetition. >> no question about that. i think if you look at what is happening in rural america, and listen -- fox has viewers in every part of the country, small, large
communities. liu youngkin won some of those counties by margins that vladimir putin gets. so what is happening is that every democrat, every democrat, and they would join joe manchin if they could -- is basically an evil socialist if they are being nice. and someone who basically embraced pedophilia, all of the most awful people ever to walk the face of the earth. and that has an effect. there is no opening anymore. and what's happened today -- >> yeah, that's interesting -- >> fox is based on reality, a little bit, but the big lie. they have the president of the united states, and -- basically it's news, as sick as it is. this is completely made up. and we have to watch very carefully to see if we will see more like this. because obviously the people who watch the network but then the velocity with which that reaches tens of millions of
americans over the course of hours, it is unprecedented in american history. >> yeah. david plouffe, who has been on the other side of that machine, had it aimed at him. thank you so much. >> thanks chris. >> that is all in for the week. is all in for the week well good evening once again day 297 of the biden administration, tonight as we bring a long week to a close there is a glimmer of possible consequences for one of the most arrogant and hubris stick members of trump's inner circles. steve bannon indicted by a federal grand jury for contempt of congress. and the other news is about that guy in the right, former trump white house chief of staff, former congressman mark meadows may be heading for the same fate. grand jury's decision on banning came late this afternoon, 22 days after the house voted to hold him