Summary

The DOJ is adding more prosecutors and resources to investigate effort to overturn the 2020 election. The January 6 committee is going to hold eighth haring Thursday 8P ET.

Transcript

CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST, “ALL IN”: He said it was a waste of time, but I know plenty of gay people in Florida that are pissed off about gas prices.

[21:00:04]

Which is a top five all-time politician pivot.

Congressman Mondaire Jones, thank you very much for your time tonight. I appreciate it.

REP. MONDAIRE JONES (D-NY): Thanks for having me, Chris.

HAYES: That is “ALL IN” on this Wednesday night.

MSNBC PRIME starts right now with Ayman Mohyeldin.

Good evening, Ayman.

AYMAN MOHYELDIN, MSNBC HOST: Hey, good evening, Chris, and thanks for having that conversation. It`s a reminder, two footsteps forward, one step back in this country. Hopefully, we`ll continue to move forward on this issue.

HAYES: Hopefully, that`s the ratio, exactly.

MOHYELDIN: Exactly, that ratio is sometimes in question. Thanks, my friend. It`s good to see you as always.

And thanks to you at home for joining us in this hour.

It was May of 2018, the Pulitzer Prize board was announcing the years awards for the most outstanding journalism of the year. And they delivered this warning.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LEE BOLLINGER, PULITZER PRIZE BOARD MEMBER: On the political front, I think that it is clear that the nation is facing the most serious internal attacks on the fundamental values and institutional structures that define a democracy since the Pulitzer`s were introduced a century ago, then precisely to counteract problematic, authoritarian tendencies throughout the society.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MOHYELDIN: Now, that warning was followed by the announcement of that year`s Pulitzer Prize for national reporting which went to “The New York Times” and “The Washington Post” for, quote, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest on Russian interference in the 2016 election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the president-elect`s transition team, and his eventual administration.

Now, that choice naturally drew the ire of then President Donald Trump, who did not stop complaining about the decision, even after he left the White House. It actually led the Pulitzer boards to open two separate independent investigations into the awarding of those prizes. This week, the Pulitzer board announced the results of those investigations, and here is part of what they said.

No passages or headlines, contentions or assertions in any of the winning submissions were discredited by facts that emerged subsequent to the control of the prizes. The 2018 Pulitzer Prizes in national reporting stand.

Now, the Pulitzer Board stayed behind this succession of thoroughly reported stories detailing Russia`s interference in the 2016 campaign, Trump and his campaign`s links to Russia, Trump`s efforts to obstruct investigations into both.

This was the headline in one of those award-winning pieces of reporting. It`s from “The New York Times”, dated in April of 2017. Quote, Comey tried to shield the FBI from politics. Then he shaped an election.

FBI Director Jim Comey broke with traditional Justice Department traditions back in 2016 when he twice, not once but twice, publicly announced an investigation into Hillary Clinton`s emails. DOJ policy that Comey broke with was the Justice Department rules around election sensitivities. Every four years or so, the Justice Department puts out this guidance, limiting what federal investigators can and should say publicly about candidates who are being investigated on the principle that these investigations should not interfere with our democratic process.

Donald Trump was all too happy to see Jim Comey`s decision to abandon that policy during the FBI`s investigation into Hillary Clinton back in 2016. When the FBI opened its own investigation into Donald Trump, what did Donald Trump do? Trump fired Comey.

And as Trump sought reelection, his Attorney General Bill Barr in February 2020 decided to issue a new election sensitivities policy, ordering that in addition to the standard rules, any new investigation of a presidential candidate must be cleared by him.

As Rachel first reported on Monday, Attorney General Merrick Garland has now issued his own election sensitivities memo, which continues Barr`s 2020 policy that the opening of any investigations into presidential candidates must first be cleared by the attorney general. It comes at a time when Garland`s Justice Department is facing serious scrutiny over whether it is being aggressive enough in its investigations into January 6th, and the broader plot by Trump and his allies to overturn our 2020 election, especially as two other investigations into the matter continue to move forward, and make new revelations.

Take, for example, Fulton County, Georgia. The local district attorney there has sent target letters to 16 people involved in the fake electors plot in that state. Today, that investigation advanced even further, because a judge they`re ordered that Rudy Giuliani will have to testify before a special grand jury.

[21:05:06]

And then there is the investigation that we are all witnessing in real- time, the one by January 6th — the January 6 committee, rather, which is set to hold its eighth and potentially most dramatic hearing tomorrow night in primetime. A hearing that will focus on publicly holding Trump accountable for his inaction during the January 6th attack.

Tonight, “The Washington Post” is reporting that the committee plans to show outtake footage from a video message recorded by Trump the day after the attack, illustrating how Trump refused to condemn the violence, and wanted to call the rioters patriots.

Even the Senate, the place where good ideas go to die, even they are on the verge of taking new action in response to January 6th. Today, a bipartisan group of senators introduced a new legislation to fix the Electoral Count Act, the law that Donald Trump sought to exploit in his plot to get Vice President Mike Pence to refuse to certify the official results of the 2020 election.

All of this, all of this leads to the inevitable question, what is the Justice Department doing to hold Donald Trump accountable? We know from reporting in “The New York Times” that the Justice Department was astonished, and jolted by Cassidy Hutchinson`s testimony, recounting her test experience inside of the White House on the day, January the 6th. We know the Justice Department has also requested access to witness testimony, gathered by the committee. “The Wall Street Journal” is reporting this week that the Justice Department is now ramping up its resources into the investigation, into Trump`s plot to overturn the election.

And today, Attorney General Merrick Garland took questions from reporters. It was asked directly about what the Justice Department is doing to investigate Trump`s efforts to overturn the election. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MERRICK GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL: There is a lot of special speculation around with the Justice Department is doing, what it is not, doing whatever feelings are, what our feelings aren`t, and it will continue to be that speculation. That is because a central tenant of the way in which the Justice Department investigates, a central tenet to the rule of law, is that we do not do our investigations in public. This is the most wide ranging investigation, and the most important investigation, that the Justice Department has ever entered to.

And we have done so because this effort to upend a legitimate election, transferring power from one administration to another, cuts of the fundamental of American democracy. We have to get this right.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MOHYELDIN: We have to get this right!

What Merrick Garland says there is absolutely true. Federal prosecutors do not conduct their investigations in public, nor should they. The inevitable part of those investigations do become public. And subpoenas are issued, and witnesses are called to testify, reporters get groups about where investigations stand, and where they are headed. What leads they are following.

Well, we don`t know for sure what is happening inside of the Justice Department, we do have enough fragments to try to piece together a picture, and right now, that picture is starting to look like one of a Justice Department that meticulously tried to avoid politics. As a result of that, it appears to be frantically playing catch-up on what Merrick Garland himself today described as the most important investigation of our time.

Joining us now are: Sadie Gurman, reporter for “The Wall Street Journal”, covering the Justice Department, and David Rohde, executive editor of news for TheNewYork.com.

It`s great to have both of you with us.

Sadie, all start with you. You covered the Justice Department every day. You spent a lot of time there. It`s not often that the attorney general takes questions as he did today, especially for the American people to see it in real-time. He was clearly prepared to respond to the recent criticism a lot of people have been leveling at the DOJ. What did you make of the attorney general`s remarks today?

SADIE GURMAN, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL JUSTICE DEPARTMENT REPORTER: What I saw there in the attorney general`s conference room was a very forceful response. It did not offer a lot of new information about the status of the investigation, but was intended to offer assurances to the American public that this investigation remains a top priority for the Justice Department, even as it has — you know, even as the much more public January 6th committee hearings continue to capture Republican attention.

So, what we heard today was that the attorney general is insisting that this sort of parallel January 6th committee investigation is not influencing prosecutors work, but it is hard to imagine a situation in which prosecutors hearing much of this testimony for the first time.

[21:10:00]

And in particular, as you mentioned, the testimony of people like Cassidy Hutchinson, who was the directly implicating Trump in the violence of January 6th. It`s hard to imagine the prosecutors can listen to, that and are not taking that into account.

As we reported last week, the Justice Department in recent weeks has been ramping up resources, particularly toward a unit that is focusing on the more complicated aspects of the investigation. The more complex conspiracy cases, and looking into the violence of that day.

So, we did not get a lot of substantive information from the attorney general today, but we did get a commitment that the Justice Department is continuing to investigate everybody and anybody. The quote the did, play the attorney general did say that there is nothing in the Justice Department policy that has prevented us from investing in anybody who, you know, is responsible for criminal conduct.

MOHYELDIN: And I brought that — I`m glad you brought up that, point because, David, that leads me to my other question. The Justice Department is clearly aware of this criticism, to Sadie`s point there, what did you make of what Garland said? And do you think that the Justice Department and Garland himself at some level wrestling with the question of whether it is more dangerous to prosecute Trump, or not to prosecute Trump because of the unprecedented nature of it?

DAVID ROHDE, EXECUTIVE EDITOR OF NEWS, NEWYORKER.COM: I think that they are wrestling with it. I agree with Sadie. What is interesting is how forceful they have been.

Yesterday was the deputy attorney general, Lisa Monaco, who is obviously very cautious. And Garland, obviously, is very cautious as well. We are seeing very clearly that Donald Trump announces that he is running for president again, that will not prevent him from investigating. They are using the language about following the evidence, wherever it leads, to go to the top of the command chain.

So, those statements are reassuring, but there is a problem here. The DOJ is behind other investigation, and you mentioned the kind of reporting that federal prosecutors are being surprised when Cassidy Hutchinson testified. I heard the same thing. I heard that from a DOJ official that there was tremendous surprise.

There was some frustration, they have asked as you mentioned, for all of the transcripts of the January 6th committee. They don`t have, them but they would like to have, them but Garland has adopted this very slow, cautious strategy. I think that in the end, the process would be that these prosecutors and his deputies would recommend an action against Trump, either to prosecute or not prosecute.

And then it comes down to Garland, would he override that recommendation if the team that has carried out this investigation calls for Trump`s being indicted, will Garland defy them or follow them? I think that most people that I know who no Garland say that he would go along with that recommendation. This is all moving very slowly, and I`m not sure that will happen anytime soon.

MOHYELDIN: Yeah, I want to get to the issue of the line of prosecutors in a moment. But, Sadie, I want to go back to something that you reported over the weekend, that the Justice Department is adding prosecutors and resources to its investigation. Perhaps a signal that it is ramping up, but the attorney general was asked today, if the DOJ has the necessary resources. He responded that the department could always use more resources, but that it can still accomplish his mission, and that the people at the DOJ are committed to it.

How does that square with your own reporting of what is happening behind the scenes?

GURMAN: Well, no matter how you cut it, this is just a massive, massive investigation. Already, the Justice Department has brought almost 900 — charges against almost 900 people. Those are just folks who work directly or otherwise involved in the events of that day. So, we expect there to be more arrests, and expect there to be what looks to be an expanding investigation.

The attorney general, as you noted today said that the Justice Department could always use more resources for, this but as recently as March, we saw a job posting go up. They were seeking more prosecutors to work on the elements of this investigation. We know that there has been a prosecutor assigned for Maryland, Thomas Windom, which is leading a team of prosecutors focusing on the more complicated conspiracy cases, and we know that in recent months that his team has expanded, given some more office space and its mandate has expanded.

The Justice Department official — top Justice Department officials would dispute that that is in dispute to any other events that is playing out on the Hill. It is a sign that the Justice Department is moving away from the violence of that day to more of the complicated elements of the broader crime.

MOHYELDIN: David, one of the criticisms, if you will, of the Department of Justice has been perhaps the element of surprise in which the public is learning that the DOJ seems to be surprised by some of the revelations coming out of the January 6th committee.

[21:15:00]

Does that seem normal to you that they are asking for the transcripts at the same time that the American public is hearing them? And that they are not aware of some of these conversations, where some of these people that are being interviewed by the DOJ on their own prior, to the January 6th investigation.

GURMAN: That`s very usual, the letter that it was sent asking for the transcripts. There are often dual investigations to the congressional committee, and then the Justice Department looking into a criminal case. So, that is what`s unusual.

I think to the credit of the January 6 committee, and they have an easier job, they don`t have to prove things in court at a reasonable doubt. What`s different is the January 6th committee has done a masterful job of focusing on Donald Trump. His actions, his corrupt intent, key legal standards that show that he knew what he was doing, that he knew that he had lost the election, that he knew the mob was going to have charges to obstruct an official proceeding.

So, the committee has done a great job at focusing on Trump himself, and I do think that the department has been slow. They`re trying to catch up now. I would argue that there was some statement by Benny Thompson that they did not want to release these transcripts immediately.

After this hearing on Thursday night, the January 6 Committee should turn over the stressors immediately. There is no reason for them to sit on them. The Justice Department needs them, and everyone should put down any turf battles, and focus on a full investigation of Donald Trump and his actions.

MOHYELDIN: All right. Sadie Gurman, reporter for “The Wall Street Journal” covering the Justice Department, David Rohde, executive editor of news for the NewYorker.com, thanks to both of you for starting us off tonight. We appreciate your time.

And new details tonight in the investigation into why members of the Secret Service deleted their text messages from January 6th. It turns out they were told multiple times, not just, once but multiple times not to delete them.

Former FBI official Peter Strzok knows a thing or two about missing and recovered text messages, he joins us next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[21:21:40]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. LIZ CHENEY (R-WY): President Trump is a 76 year old man. He is not an impressionable child. Just like everyone else in our country, he is responsible for his own actions, and his own choices.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MOHYELDIN: So in less than 24 hours from now, the House committee investigating the January 6th attack will return to prime time television to deliver the finale in a series of eight public hearings, but hardly, hardly the last we`ll see this year. The tension will be on Donald Trump`s 187 minutes of inaction, the time period in which the committee said Trump deliberately chose not to intervene while the Capitol was under siege.

They want to make the case that this was not a spontaneous attack, but instead a predictable outcome that was fueled by Trump. That is complete that picture, aides confirmed that in addition to Trump, the committee will also address the conduct of close aides who enable the presidents action that day. Including of course, his chief of staff, his former chief of staff, Mark Meadows.

The hearing will reportedly also feature new clips of Trump, White House counsel, Pat Cipollone, describing his thoughts of Trump`s inaction, and while the committee approaches the final chapter, I in this current series of hearings, they remains key important evidence that the committee won`t be able to present tomorrow, in part because of this.

Quote: The Secret Service erased text messages that could help verify, or rebut some of the most stunning testimony about Donald Trump and his actions during the insurrection of January 6, 2021. Secret Service officials say they wiped messages — the wiped messages rather were part of a pre-scheduled reset of their phones. Crucial information about January 6, gone.

And now that the Secret Service says it cannot recover the data, they are questions about what to do next. The committee subpoenaed the agency last week, but one member of the panel told MSNBC yesterday, the only received one text message.

And now today, NBC reports that these messages were deleted despite the Secret Service having received multiple warnings in writing not to do so, including from Congress itself.

The January 6 panel released a statement today, laying out its concerns about all of this. Writing in part, quote: Four House committees have already thought these critical records from the Department of Homeland Security, before the records were apparently lost. The procedure for preserving content prior to this purge appears to have been contrary to Federal Records retention requirements, and may represent a possible violation of the Federal Records Act.

Joining us now is Peter Strzok, former FBI counterintelligence officer and author of “Compromised: Counterintelligence and the Threat of Donald J. Trump”.

We should note, he has ample experience in the matter of analyzing data as he led the investigation of the Hillary Clinton`s alleged abuse of a personal email server. He also sought some of his own missing text messages recovered as part of a DOJ investigation.

Peter, it`s good to see you again. Thank you so much for being here.

So, NBC News is reporting today that the Secret Service deleted these text messages that were set before and during January 6, despite having received multiple warnings in writing, not to do so, including from Congress.

[21:25:01]

Let`s just start at that point. What is your interpretation here? I mean, negligence or something more sinister?

PETER STRZOK, FORMER FBI OFFICIAL: Well, Ayman, that`s a good question, and the fact of the matter is we don`t know right now. Now let`s get a step back and explain why this is important. It`s not just the events of January 6, it`s everything that led up to it and preceded after that, everything from warnings about potential violence to the vice president that were discussed on the evening of January 5th, you know, the now famous potential fight within the presidential motorcade where Trump was trying to get to the Capitol.

But also extraordinarily important, the decision of Mike Pence not to get into his vehicle, not to leave the Capitol — all of these of fans the Secret Service played an absolutely critical role to every one of those events. And so, the question is, what those text might have, and where those text might still live or exist to be gathered by the committee are absolutely critical for the committee`s work, for the Department of Justice`s work investigating these events, but they are a unique source of information, and the fact that they were deleted, or appear to be deleted despite all of these requests to be preserved.

The story gets more and more concerning rather than getting better, as ach time goes on.

MOHYELDIN: So given your own personal professional experience, do you believe as the Secret Service is saying, that they don`t have a way to recover these messages, one would just think logically, there may be on a server, on a clouds over of some sort, are automatically backed up to some hard drive when they are being migrated from one device to another?

STRZOK: Well, you know, I think, you know, the fact, as I did investigations over a dozen a federal agency, and each agency tends to do operations differently. The baseline software that they might put on their devices to monitor and record text and emails, the operating systems, even the type of device, whether it`s an android-based system, or an iPhone, or an iOS based. Whether or not they maintain servers for tech servers in- house, whether they use outside vendors to do that, whether they choose as a backbone Verizon, or AT&T, there are so many different parables that are involved here.

But certainly, I`ve worked with Secret Service agents who do cyber investigations, their confidence is extraordinary. They are very good at doing cybercrime when they apply themselves to it.

So it really stretches my belief that there is no way, not on all the devices, not metadata residing into the cellular company that provided the service to the Secret Service, not on any old backup data that the Secret Service might maintain, not in the form of other people that might have been sent the text that are from the accounts they can`t find.

I don`t think that there is a list where some data doesn`t exist out there. It is a question of going out there and finding it. And then that brings up a very important question of, is this something the Secret Service should be seeking, or is it something that the Department of Homeland Security inspector general, who if you think about, other, that is the purpose of inspector generals, to go out and do the sort of independent investigations.

But there has to be a very thorough, go to the ends of the earth, try to find this information, because these have been were so critical. Not just the past few years, but to our history of our nation, and what January 6 represented.

MOHYELDIN: Yeah, a lot of questions still around the Secret Service and its handling of these text messages. Peter Strzok, former FBI counterintelligence officer, thank you so much for being here and sharing with us tonight.

Election deniers across the country are running for office and winning their primaries, often with thanks to support from Democrats who are running against them in November. But is that a dangerous strategy that could backfire? That`s next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[21:33:12]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

AD NARRATOR: This is Republican State Senator Doug Mastriano. He`s the Republican who`s ahead in the polls for governor. He wants to outlaw abortion. It is Mastriano who wrote the heartbeat bill in Pennsylvania and is one of Donald Trump`s strongest supporters.

He wants to end vote by mail, and he led the fight to audit the 2020 election. If Mastriano, wins, it is a win for what Donald Trump stands for.

Is that what we want in Pennsylvania?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MOHYELDIN: So, that ad that you saw there, that was paid for by Josh Shapiro`s campaign. He is the Democratic nominee for governor in Pennsylvania. It ran as the Republican primary race for Pennsylvania governor was actually heating up back in May.

And as it turned out, Doug Mastriano won that primary. It seems like the money that the Democrats spent on the attack ad actually helped Mastriano win that race, perhaps because some Republican voters actually wanted a win for what Donald Trump stands for.

And now, Mastriano, a far-right candidate has a real shot at the governor`s office. He is now pulling within the margin marginal error of Democratic nominee Josh Shapiro, and he`s busy courting establishment GOP donors.

Now, Democrats are running the same playbook in Maryland, with one Democratic group spending more than a million dollars on advertising the elevated Republican candidate of governor, Dan Cox, promoting his ties to Trump, as well as his pro-life and Second Amendment stands.

Apparently, a lot of Maryland Republicans were actually into that description. Yesterday, Dan Cox won the Republican primary for Maryland, defeating the current Republican governor`s protegee by a 16-point margin.

Here`s a little background on Mr. Cox for you. He was an election denier. Not only did he attend a White House ellipse rally on January 6th, he helped and buses of protesters to attend the rally.

[21:35:07]

And he also called Mike Pence, the vice president of the United States, a traitor, and argued that President Biden was, quote, installed in the White House. He promised to do a forensic audit of the 2020 election ban, and to ban abortion, among other things if he wins office.

Cox has also mentioned to be a bit of a nuisance to Governor Hogan for years now. He recently tried to impeach the governor over his COVID-19 public health measures.

As for Cox`s ally in the Maryland attorney general race, wait for this one. Michael Peroutka, he also won the Republican nomination. Now, Peroutka is Christian nationalist who ran on opposing abortion, protecting gun rights and prosecuting officials who, quote, that have violated the God-given liberties of Marylanders.

To sharpen the image of Christian nationalism for you, this is a guy that founded the Institute on the Constitution, which believes, and again, I`m quoting. There is a God, our rights come from him, the purpose of civil government is to secure and protect our God-given rights.

That is the kind of candidate that is now on the ballot for state office in the great state of Maryland. And perhaps thanks in part to some well-funded Democratic ads, he is in good company.

Joining us now is Michael Steele, former RNC chairman, former Maryland lieutenant governor and MSNBC political analyst.

Michael, I couldn`t think of anybody better to talk about Maryland politics than, you thank you for joining us.

MICHAEL STEELE, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Yeah, I know a little bit about it.

MOHYELDIN: Certainly no more about it than I do.

Let me ask you, because you also know the Republican Party. Do you think that these far-right Republican nominees for state office have a real shot at winning your state in the fall?

STEELE: No. They don`t. And largely because the numbers work against Republicans in the main. We are outnumbered 2 to 1, in Democratic versus Republican registration. What we saw happened at the time that I ran with Bob Ehrlich in 2002, and what Larry Hogan did starting in 2014, was to create a narrative that began to appeal to center-right Democrats, and independent voters who typically and traditionally voted Democratic. It gave them a choice to consider.

What Dan Cox has done ostensibly is, by defeating Kelly, take that choice away from those voters. So, the likelihood that they are going to, in the first instance, the first blush, Ayman, vote for somebody who believes that Joe Biden was installed in the White House, bused people to January 6th, call the vice president, then Vice President Pence a traitor, that these are going to be — these are Larry Hogan voters.

No, they`re not going to vote for Dan Cox in that regard. So, this is going to be a very difficult struggle for the GOP to hold the governor`s mansion coming this summer.

MOHYELDIN: Give me your political sense here for a moment. What should Democrats do to more effectively propose these candidates? I want to be careful in the way that we characterize those ads. Democrats are paying for them, but we are really running. They are leading the Republican field, and in any campaign, candidates attack one another.

Are they — are the Democrats who are running these ads during the primaries, are they galvanizing Trump supporters to the Republican voters? To the advantage of those far-right candidates, or should they just simply ignore them until they get to the general election? What`s the smart play here for Democrats?

STEELE: Well, you know, I think that what you have to look at, Ayman, is that it`s on the state by state basis. There are have a few states where the Democrats play that card, and they have failed. The Trump candidate lost, and did not win. And so, that now has created a very competitive environment for Democrats in those particular states.

Then you have states like Pennsylvania and Maryland, where the ads worked. And so, the question certainly now, as you showed the poll on Pennsylvania, where the candidate who was supposed to scare the hell out of Pennsylvania it is within four points of Democrats. So, you`re sitting there going, did somebody see that coming?

And here`s — the rub is, the difference between Pennsylvania and Maryland is going to be that voter registration. What you will likely see in a place like Maryland is the concern about a Dan Cox becoming governor will draw out Democrats who ordinarily would not vote in this election, because, hey, Democrats run the state, or they like the Republican candidate, and they are fine with that person winning.

[21:40:03]

But what Dan Cox represents is an opportunity for those candidates to come out, which might hurt down ballot Republicans for county executive and other races, who would otherwise stand a good chance of winning. Similarly, in Pennsylvania with Mastriano, the problem that you have there is that Republicans and Democrats are much closer, and independents play a bigger role. If they like Mastriano suddenly now as the polls reflect, the race becomes more competitive because the margins do not allow you the wriggle room that you have in a state like Maryland.

MOHYELDIN: We`ve got about 30 seconds left, I want to ask you big picture. Speaking of down ballots, Trump keeps teasing that he will announce a bid for president in 2024, some time soon, perhaps to avoid criminal prosecution. Who knows? But according to some reporting, he might do it before November.

If he does announce on that timeline, before the midterms, what do you anticipate? What kind of impact do you think you will have on the midterms?

STEELE: It will definitely have an impact because then those Democrats and independent voters, and even some Republican voters who are going to be concerned about giving power back to Republicans this November, so that sets up Trump for 2024. They are going to come out and not vote Republican. They`re just not.

And so, they`re already running the risk of other issues, the Supreme Court put on the table, for example. It is a very dicey fall for Republicans.

MOHYELDIN: My friend, Michael Steele, former RNC chairman, former Maryland lieutenant governor, and an MSNBC political analyst — always good to see you, bud. Thank you so much.

STEELE: All right, my man.

MOHYELDIN: Take care.

STEELE: Take care.

Up next, how abortion bans are putting people in life-threatening situations and blocking doctors from doing their jobs.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[21:46:25]

MOHYELDIN: A Texas woman was pregnant with twins, but at 15 weeks, one was delivered stillborn. She asked to abort the other because of a risk of infection but she was denied by the hospital. And as “The New York Times” reports today, the woman returned to the hospital about two weeks later, feeling sick. Her pregnancy was terminated out of concern for her health. She had to be admitted to the intensive care unit for sepsis and acute kidney injury, both life-threatening conditions.

And that article offers an excruciating detail, the plight of numerous women who have encountered pregnancy complications, and who were denied abortion procedures, until they themselves, faced significant medical problems. And given the spate of abortion bans now enacted around the country, including one in Georgia, just today, stories like that have become tragically increasingly common.

And that is certainly the case in Louisiana where an abortion ban in that state is on hold while a legal challenge plays out in court. Louisiana`s abortion ban would make exception for the mother`s health as we are seeing elsewhere in the country. The law`s language is extremely bacon that complicates matters. And a case challenging the state`s trigger man, a doctor wrote in an affidavit that she had a patient who was 16 weeks pregnant when her water broke.

The pregnancy was not a viable and continuing the pregnancy could be life- threatening to her. The patient requested an abortion. But citing Louisiana`s new abortion ban, the doctor`s attorney advised against it, so according to the affidavit, the doctor wrote that the patient quote, was forced to go through a painful, hours long labor, to deliver a nonviable fetus, despite her wishes and best medical advice from doctors.

She hemorrhaged. She lost nearly a liter of blood, and in another affidavit, in a case, Dr. Rebecca Duy, former Louisiana health secretary, expressed her profound concerns regarding lifesaving treatment for women. Under the state`s ban saying in part, quote, if doctors are not comfortable or able to anticipate the legal implications of their medical care or how they may be prosecuted for providing that health care, then they may not as according to their best medical judgment and training.

Fear of punishment aligns with lack of clarity and how this law will be and voice can lead to devastating consequences for Louisiana women as well as moral distress for the clinicians who care for them and have taken the Hippocratic Oath to do no harm.

Joining us now is Dr. Rebekah Gee, a practicing gynecologist and former Louisiana department of health secretary. She is also the CEO and founder of Nest Health.

Dr. Gee, thank you so much for joining us here this evening.

Can you tell us a little bit more about what prompted you to write that affidavit in support of the case to block Louisiana`s trigger ban? How did you get involved?

DR. REBEKAH GEE, TRAINED IN OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGIST: Listen, I`ve spent my whole life, my adult professional life taking care of women. I`ve trained to be an OB. I`ve spent eight years both in the medical school and the residency learning how to take care of women, and Nest Health takes care of women.

To see that the case where we cannot do what is right for our patients and the first time in my career where we have to watch women as Dr. William so while described, during the time that the ban was in place, she watched a woman — liter — nearly a liter of blood, women coming in with infections that we normally would be able to take care of. It`s just unconscionable.

But, also, I`m a mother of three girls.

[21:50:01]

You know, I have nine year old twins and in my affidavit, I also wrote about the case of ten year old girl who was raped. You know there was a case in Ohio that we heard about who grows our victim of incest, or raped, or we`re going to require children, to have children, tearing apart the inside of their bodies, creating a lifetime of mental health and physical consequences.

This is just, not what we should be doing in the free world. This is on the wrong side of history. It`s on the wrong side of science. And the politicians who wrote these bills do not understand the nuance of what happens in pregnancy. They never had a sit out the best out of one of these patients, watching them bleed, watching their infection progress, and it`s unacceptable.

So I am doing everything I can to try to make this a more reasonable situation for doctors and their patience.

MOHYELDIN: From your experience, and from where you sit, and the doctors you speak to, can you tell us more about the consequences of Louisianans abortion ban, in terms of providing lifesaving health care to pregnant women?

GEE: I mean, it`s chilling. So, you know, health care workers work in teams. So as physicians, we have a scrub tax, we have nurses. We have anesthesiologist who help us provide the care for patients.

So to say a case of sepsis, as you have a woman who comes in, her water is broken, she is infected, she starts to become febrile, we start to see the sepsis continuing. Her organ start to shut down, at what point is she nearly dead enough under this bill, that we can intervene? It`s not clear.

And if we make the wrong decision, that is ten years in jail, for all of us, and $100,000 fine.

So we are putting our own — those of us who spent our whole life trying to care for people, I putting our lives, our livelihood, on the line, to do what we feel is right. And what about the anesthesiologists? I mean, who`s going to be willing to do that procedure given that there isn`t clarity in these laws, given that the legislature hasn`t protected the decision-making that happens between a doctor and her patient.

So this is going to have a chilling effect, already has a chilling effect, and it is scary. This is to protect the life of a mother. Well, what is the life of a mother? What about her kidneys? What about her vows? What if she`s permanently infertile?

What if she loses consciousness but she is still alive?

I mean, what these laws forget is that you have to have a living mother to have a living baby. And, you know, we`ve unfortunately prioritize the wrong things. We have to regardless of whether you think abortion should be a right, which I do, but you should — these laws should do a much better job protecting patients.

And I don`t think anybody should want a ten year old to carry a pregnancy to term. I don`t think anybody should want woman to die in pregnancy. And by the way, these laws are being promulgated in states where maternal mortality is already at its worse.

Louisiana was once the 50th worse state. Not 49. We have a long way to go to protect women. And this is a step backwards.

MOHYELDIN: Dr. Rebekah Gee, practicing gynecologist and former Louisiana department of health secretary, thank you so much for your time. Thank you for sharing your insights with us. We greatly appreciate it.

GEE: Thank you.

MOHYELDIN: With about a third of the country under heat related advisory, tonight President Biden took executive action on climate change today, but not the action many wants him to take. We`ll tell you about that next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[21:57:39]

MOHYELDIN: This was the Brayton Point power plant in Somerset, Massachusetts being demolished in 2019. The former coal plant used to be the largest power plant in all of New England, but today it is where President Biden addressed the dire climate emergency that we are facing.

And while it might see like an odd spot to address the climate crisis, in many ways, it exemplifies the biggest clean energy wins of the Biden presidency. This is a 3D rendering of the mayflower wind offshore wind farm. What you see, what you are seeing isn`t exactly what it would look like, but it`s close to it.

It is going to be built about 30 miles south of Martha`s Vineyard, and when it is done, it well power enough for 800,000 homes.

And where Biden gave his address today, that is where that wind farm will connect to the mainland power grid. It`s also where they are going to manufacture the massive undersea cables to make that happen. All of that is expected to generate about 14,000 well-paying jobs that will last at least 20 to 25 years.

And that is just one wind farm. Last fall, President Biden used his executive power to get the Department of Interior to open up nearly all federal waters far offshore leasing for wind farms. Think about that. It allows the expansion of clean energy projects like this one anywhere in federal waters. So, that is the good news.

But with Senator Joe Manchin sinking what hope is left of congressional action on climate, many Democrats and activists were actually pushing Biden to use his address today to declare the climate crisis a national emergency, and use a lot more executive power to fight it. They argue that Biden could do things like redirect spending from military bases to renewal energy developments, you know, along the lines of what President Trump did to build his wall on the southern border that Mexico was supposed to pay for.

Biden has also been pushed to halt crude oil exports, and offshore drilling, and stop hundreds of millions of dollars of private investments into fossil fuel projects abroad. Instead, President Biden announced much more modest measures today, including money for FEMA, to help states build cooling centers.

Now, he also issued an update on the process of using federal waters for offshore wind, announcing plans for offshore new wind projects in the Gulf of Mexico. That matters. Let`s be clear about that. That`s not nothing.

But it is nowhere near the scale of the problem that we are facing. It`s important to remember that Biden has used his executive powers to do big, bold things on climate before. That is also a lesson for how much more he could and should still do.

That does it for us tonight.

Now, it`s time for “THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL”.

Good evening, Lawrence.