Summary

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) joins Hayes to discuss the January 6 panel, the Supreme Court, and the threat to Democracy. The January 6 Committee may make criminal referrals on witness tampering and warns of attempts to influence witnesses by Trump allies. A Trump filmmaker Alex Holder is cooperating with the January 6 investigation and has nearly 11 hours of footage that was subpoenaed by the committee. Ketanji Brown Jackson was today sworn in as the nation`s 116th Justice and the first Black woman at the Supreme Court. Georgia Democratic Gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams joins Hayes to discuss the post-Roe fight for abortion rights in America.

Transcript

JOY REID, MSNBC HOST: Wow. In a written statement, Justice Jackson writes, “With a full heart, I accept the solemn responsibility and supporting — of supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States and administering justice without fear or favor, so help me God. I`m truly grateful to be part of the promise of our great nation.”

And that is tonight`s REIDOUT. “ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES” starts now.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST: Tonight on ALL IN.

REP. LIZ CHENEY (R-WY): This moment in our history demands more. Republicans cannot both be loyal to Donald Trump and loyal to the Constitution.

HAYES: A clarion call to confront Donald Trump`s danger to democracy as the high court issues another set of decisions that tear apart representative governance. Tonight, the desperate need for action on both fronts with Congressman Jamie Raskin.

Plus, new details of alleged intimidation of witnesses, and documentary filmmaker Alex Holder on what he saw before January 6, and the threats he faces for cooperating with the committee.

All that and Stacey Abrams on the fight to preserve abortion rights in Georgia and beyond when “ALL IN starts right now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Good evening from New York. I`m Chris Hayes. You know, as we learn more about how bad January 6 was, I`m stalked by the persistent suspicion that basically everyone in the Republican Party, the elected leaders, the party leadership, with some notable exceptions, would do it all again. They would all support Donald Trump, all his anti-democratic intentions, his aspirations to be a basically a fascist authoritarian, and even if it had gotten worse.

I mean, we got really lucky on January 6. It could have gotten a lot worse, even if the mob chanting hang Mike Pence had made it to Mike Pence. They would do it again, even if that happened. I think that very strongly. And that`s because they made a trade early on. It was a transaction between them and Trump. The trade was they would blindly support Donald Trump with all of the dangerous and obvious flaws and all the danger that he would put people in which he did, of course, in order to have a shot at a super majority on the Supreme Court. And that trade paid off.

In his four years, Donald Trump nominated and confirmed three justices of the court and they now have a six-three far-right majority. And it is already delivering for them in truly unprecedented fashion. Just today, on the final day of the term, the court limited the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate carbon emissions.

Now, that authority exists under the duly passed and enacted Clean Air Act, of course, passed by Congress, signed by a Republican president, a law designed to, well, regulate air pollution and emissions. There was a plan proposed by the Obama administration to regulate air pollution emissions in the way of carbon that got struck down today.

Now, it`s complicated. The plan wasn`t really even in place and for a bunch of reasons, and it`s not really even worth getting into the court`s reasoning because the court`s reasoning is so pretextual as to be ludicrous. It`s sort of a waste of time to run it down. Here`s the reason that six conservative justices wanted to make it hard for the EPA to regulate carbon, to weaken the power the administration state.

The reason, their reasoning is they had six votes. It`s the reason when you`re with a group of people deciding where to go to dinner, you know, if six people go — want to go there and three don`t, that the reason. There`s not a reason. You don`t issue an opinion about where you went, you go there because you had the votes. That`s what the court is.

We saw something similar to the courts recent ruling making it harder for states to keep guns off the streets and of course, when the court overturned, 50 years of precedent to end the Federal right to an abortion. That`s it. They have the votes, they can do whatever they want, unless someone stops them. There`s no other conclusion now that the Supreme Court is, I fear, an a cute threat to American representative governance and democracy.

As Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York said on Twitter, “Members of Congress have sworn oath to the Constitution. It is our duty to check the courts gross overreach of power in violating people`s unalienable rights and seizing for itself the powers of Congress and the President.” That`s well said. That`s what they did today. It`s an idea that Congresswoman expanded on last night.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D-NY): And when we have the framing of — you know, the framing of our government, the presidency, Congress — the President, Congress, and the Supreme Court are supposed to be three co- equal branches — co-equal, none was supremacy over the other. And when any one of those branches overreaches its authority, it is the responsibility of the other two to check the overreach of that — of that authority. The Supreme Court has engaged in the overreaching of its authority.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[20:05:00]

HAYES: I think that`s right on the money. And I don`t even think that`s like a particularly radical notion, right? I mean, that`s actually like basic civics, foundational constitutionalism, the branches check each other. The Supreme Court does not exist outside the political system, outside of the constitutional system. It can`t just, you know, veto legislative-executive priorities, you`re like this, you`re like that, and avoid all accountability itself. It`s in the system. Congress can and must serve as a check on the court in all kinds of ways, along with the president. It can limit the scope of the court`s ability to review certain laws. You can defund the court.

I kind of like the idea of making them work without clerks just so that they, you know, don`t have summers off. It can in extreme cases, even impeach justices. That is something that`s happened before. And of course, (AUDIO GAP) it`s something that has happened many times in U.S. history. In fact, back in 1803, when the Supreme Court granted itself the power to change or overturn laws through judicial review in Marbury v. Madison, the court was only made up of six justices, not nine.

So, Democrats have to be thinking aggressively, vigorously, strategically about what to do about this problem, how to rein in this rogue court. And if you want a model of what it looks like when political leadership engages the moment with the ferocity and ruthlessness, it requires to protect our beloved institutions, look no further than the January 6 Committee.

I mean, at this point, the committee is, as far as I can tell, is like the only governing organ in the country that appears to be undertaking the project of fighting for American democracy with the zeal and acumen it deserves. And I don`t think it`s an accident that one of the key players in the committee is Congresswoman Liz Cheney of Wyoming. She`s the committee vice chair and she is a Republican who is an absolutely ruthless political operative.

Before Trump, Cheney was perhaps best known for smearing and slandering lawyers who offered defense to accuse terrorists at Guantanamo Bay deep and Guantanamo debate detainees, as essentially agents of al-Qaeda themselves. Well, that and throwing her own sister under the bus during the failed Senate race by coming out against same-sex marriage even as her sister was in one.

But for the past year, that ruthlessness has been on display for the right side of history on the January 6 Committee. It has been put to work on behalf of democracy. After months and months of depositions and investigations, the committee chaired by Benny Thompson, vice-chaired by Liz Cheney has marshaled evidence and constructed a compelling narrative and use savvy production techniques to lay out the details of Trump`s attempted coup on television.

And keep in mind, and this is important as people think about like norms and institutions and you know, if we`re too aggressive, we`re going to further the unwinding of Americans democratic structure, this committee, just in microcosm itself is the product of some really aggressive norm busting.

Remember, the original plan was for the committee having members selected by leaders of both parties, like you know, most committees. But Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy tried to stack the committee with election denier Congressman Jim Banks of Indiana, and Trump sycophant and coup supporter, perhaps co-conspirator, Congressman Jim Jordan of Ohio. Nancy Pelosi firmly rejected both men who obviously had no place in a series investigation into that day.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): These people are going to act up, cause a problem. And people said to me, put them on and then when they act up, you can pick them off. I said, why should we waste time on something as predictable? The Republicans that they put on will have their own point of view. Nobody saying that it`s all should be one point of view going on the committee. But it is when statements are ridiculous and fall into the realm of you must be kidding. There`s no way that they`re going to be on the committee.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: So, Pelosi says no to two members, not all of them, just two of the members proposed. Kevin McCarthy in turn accused Pelosi of breaking with precedent by rejecting his patently unfit choices.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY (R-CA): Speaker Pelosi has taken the unprecedented step of denying the minority party`s picks for the select committee on January 6. This represents something that has not happened in the House before for a select committee by the historian. It`s an egregious abuse of power. Pelosi has broken this institution.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: I`m sorry for laughing. Kevin McCarthy doing his best like serious face, broken this institution. The institution got kind of broken when a mob broke into it. But the point is, yes, that was pretty unprecedented. Sometimes you got to break norms. Sometimes you have to play institutional hardball to save the institutions from themselves, to vouch safe something more important than institutional status quo, which is American democracy.

And as Liz Cheney pointed out, Congressman Jordan couldn`t serve on the committee because he was a material witness.

[20:10:01]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. LIZ CHENEY (R-WY): Congressman Jordan may well be a material witness. He`s somebody who was involved in a number of meetings in the lead up to what happened on January 6, involved in planning for January 6, certainly for the objections that day, as he said publicly, so he may well be a material witness.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: And so, because Nancy Pelosi did something genuinely bold and outside tradition, we do have a real committee that is still bipartisan doing excellent work. And look, I have no idea and no one has any ideas how much it will resonate with the American people when all said and done, what minds it might change, how political behavior it might be affected. But last night, Congresswoman Cheney spoke about the grave threat facing our democracy at the Reagan Library. And the gravity of her words were not lost on the crowd of a sensible Reagan Republicans.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHENEY: We are confronting a domestic threat that we have never faced before. And that is a former president who is attempting to unravel the foundations of our constitutional republic. And he is aided by Republican leaders and elected officials who made themselves willing hostages to this dangerous and irrational man.

The reality that we face today as Republicans as we think about the choice in front of us, we have to choose, because Republicans cannot both be loyal to Donald Trump and loyal to the Constitution. At this moment —

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: A small self-selected crowd, but heartening nonetheless, right? This is why you fight. But as we`ve been saying, the other threat, perhaps the most acute threat right now, certainly in this moment is, of course, the court. And these two threads are going to come together in the courts next session, because just today, the Court agreed to hear a case out of North Carolina. And that case gives this rogue court the ability to rule in a radical and destructive fashion that could give Republican state legislators essentially total and unchecked power to alter our elections.

Basically, the theory being offered that some conservatives on the court seem anxious to endorse is sort of a formal version of the bogus legal theory that Trump lawyer John Eastman concocted to further the attempted coup. And so, we are now facing a situation in which Justice Clarence Thomas may be able to succeed where his coup-plotting wife, Ginni Thomas failed. And someone better do something about it before it`s too late.

Congressman Jamie Raskin is a Democrat of Maryland. He sits on the January 6 Committee, served as lead impeachment manager during Donald Trump`s second impeachment trial. Congressman, first let me l– et me start with you on the — on the makeup of your committee and how we got to it because I do think it`s worth taking a step back to remember that the speaker`s decision not to seat those two members was pretty bold, was pretty outside precedent. Do you think it`s paid off?

REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): Well, let`s take two steps back first, Chris. There was originally a proposal by the Republicans, which we agreed to, to have an independent 9/11 style commission made up of five Republican appointees, five Democratic appointees, equal numbers of staff and equal subpoena power. And Bennie Thompson, who`s now of course, the chair of our select committee, he agreed to that as the emissary from the speaker. The emissary from McCarthy, John Katko from New York, he agreed to it.

They took it back. We were about to sign the deal. And then as we understand it, Donald Trump vetoed it, the fourth branch of government, or at least somebody vetoed it, because suddenly, McCarthy turned on his own proposal, blew the whole thing up. That`s why Speaker Pelosi said, look, we`re not waiting around any longer. This is a matter of national importance and urgency. I`m going to create a select committee within the House of Representatives since the Republicans now both in the House, not all of them, but almost all of them and in the Senate have declared themselves opposed to any investigation of any kind at all.

That`s when she began to play hardball on behalf of constitutional democracy. And it was absolutely the right thing to do. And we have a bipartisan committee that is laser-focused on getting it just the truth, just the facts to deliver to the American people, to the Congress, to any prosecutors who are interested in it so that we can get to the bottom of what happened and we can set about the business of fortifying democratic institutions.

HAYES: Hardball on behalf of constitutional democracy. A hardball for constitutional democracy strikes me as the — as the calling of the time. And I do think the committee has been doing that. Of course, there`s people on the other side trying to play hardball. It appears that there`s some news which we`ll get to in a little bit about witness tampering possibly happening on the committee or people reaching out to try to get people called by the committee to sort of keep their story straight. Are you — we expecting more news about that?

[20:15:22]

RASKIN: I think you could expect some if they continue to do it. But the committee is resolved that we will not allow any attempts to pressure, coerce, intimidate, harass witnesses. We`re just not going to allow it. But one brief quibble, Chris. I don`t want to equate what Speaker Pelosi did, the hardball she played with what`s taking place on the dangerous extremists right today. They`re not playing hardball. They`re engaged in coups, in insurrections against democracy.

We`re in the fight of our lives here. And we`ve got to play hardball to defend our institutions. But we`re not going to go outside of the law to play their games. We`re not going to get involved in violence, in coups and so on. But we understand what they`re up to. And we`re going to play hardball to defend the institutions that centuries of patriots have built in the country.

HAYES: Yes, I mean, that brings us to the court. You`re a constitutional scholar before you`re a member of Congress. I know that you`ve thought deeply about the separation of powers. You`ve thought deeply about the foundations of the republic. And in many ways, the work you`re doing both in the — in the second impeachment and on the committee is in defense of that.

And when you look at this court and the just truly head-snapping rapidity with which they have essentially cast aside any pretext, basically set on matters large and small, ranging over laws we uphold or those we strike down, or we want a piece of this, and we want a piece of that, just sort of more rotted their way through the end of this term six to three, what that means for the current state of American constitutional governance.

RASKIN: Well, the Supreme Court is on an absolute reactionary rampage striking down reasonable modest gun safety laws like New York`s concealed carry law which we have an analogue to hear in Maryland, toppling more than a half-century of right to privacy precedent related to abortion rights in order to essentially cut the country in half so we now have a red America which is anti-choice and a blue America, which is going to be free choice.

And the decisions today are unbelievable. I mean, you know, to assault a basic administrative law doctrine that would clearly allow the EPA to cap carbon emissions, you know, in the name of, you know, somehow respecting the will of Congress when it`s congressional will which has been undermined by what they did.

HAYES: Yes.

RASKIN: And I think Justice Kagan`s dissent was right on point about that. I mean, the court is utterly fraudulent. And the only thing that can explain their decisions is what is right-wing Republican dogma.

HAYES: Congressman Jamie Raskin, who is right now engaged in a very important effort, and thank you for making some time with us tonight.

RASKIN: You bet, Chris.

HAYES: Still to come, the bombshell drop at the January 6 Committee, who in Trump world is trying to intimidate witnesses? Tonight, we got brand new reporting about who, who was pushing loyalty from Cassidy Hutchinson. That`s next.

[20:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHENEY: This is a call received by one of our witnesses. “Person let me know you have your deposition tomorrow. He wants me to let you know he`s thinking about you. He knows you`re loyal and you`re going to do the right thing when you go in for your deposition.

I think most Americans know that attempting to influence witnesses to testify untruthfully presents very serious concerns. We will be discussing these issues as a committee carefully considering our next steps.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: It`s been two days since the January 6 Committee issued that warning about potential witness tampering which if true, would amount to a federal crime. We`ve yet to see any criminal referrals from the committee but everyone is waiting to see what they and the Department of Justice will do next. Tonight, we have news about who is doing the apparent tampering. Political reporting the “an in intermediary for former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows contacted Hutchinson to say her former boss valued her loyalty.”

Joining me now is Quinta Jurecic. She`s a senior editor of Lawfare who has been writing about the committee and someone I follow very closely on all these developments. Quinta, this revelation is not that surprising but still very striking about what it means both in this particular instance, but more broadly about what Trump world has been up to vis-A -vis the people testifying before the committee.

QUINTA JURECIC, SENIOR EDITOR, LAWFARE: It`s a very familiar tactic coming from Trump. I was really struck while reading those texts and hearing Liz Cheney talk about witness intimidation, of just how similar it is to text in the Mueller report, documenting how Trump and figures around him tried to lean on witnesses not to cooperate with law enforcement, then try to intimidate them once they were cooperating.

So, as you say, it`s not a surprise. It`s a very familiar tactic. All the same, it is extremely striking that Trump and his associates appear to have been trying to impede their congressional investigation to such an extent.

[20:25:26]

HAYES: Yes. And I mean, the other aspect of this that`s I think really interesting, right, is the sort of lawyer story here, which is that Hutchinson had a lawyer who it appears now was paid for by Trump. She left that lawyer. She went to a former lawyer who`s a former Justice Department official under Jeff Sessions, a guy by the name of Jody Hunt. And that seems to be a key part of her being able to freely speak or at least feeling comfortable freely speaking.

And that got me thinking about like, wait a second, Trump`s paying for people`s lawyers. Like, that also is a pretty striking revelation.

JURECIC: Right. So, the New York Times has a report out about how Trump appears to be funding the — funding the legal funds of many of these aides. Interestingly, they noted that Trump apparently wasn`t interested in funding it at first, but then was told that he would give bad press if he – – if he didn`t, which seems very in character.

I do think it`s important to note, you know, there`s not necessarily anything wrong with providing those funds. I think the problem comes in if, you know, Trump and his associates are kind of leaning on lawyers and aides to present information in a certain way.

HAYES: We have some other reporting also about the Department of Justice and the committee. Now, this has been a really interesting story, because there`s clearly some beef, and there`s clearly tension. And it sometimes has surfaced publicly, sometimes in terms of a letter that four Justice Department officials wrote to the committee basically saying you guys are not giving us transcripts in a timely fashion.

This is in the New York Times. The federal prosecutors working on the case watch the aides Hutchinson`s appearance before the House committee investigating the riot. And we`re just as astonished by her account of former President`s increasingly desperate bid to holding the power ass other viewers. The panel did not provide them with videos or transcripts of or taped interviews with committee members beforehand, according to several officials, leaving them feeling blindsided.

You have been tracking all this very closely. What do you make of this back and forth, and these articles about this tension between the committee and the Department of Justice?

JURECIC: You know, in a way, I actually don`t find the tension very surprising. You know, these are two coordinate branches of government. The, you know, push and pull between them is part of what we expect. And you know, as the Justice Department now seems to be frustrated that the committee isn`t handing over material to the department as quickly as it was like, we could also point out and say, you know, the Justice Department made a decision not to prosecute White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, the person to whom Hutchnson was the for, for criminal contempt of Congress.

So, we do see, you know, a little bit push and pull and some tensions there. Ultimately, it`s not clear to me that, you know, those tensions are impeding either investigation, but it is certainly something to keep an eye on.

HAYES: Well, I think part of it too, is that there`s — obviously, there`s different timescales as Asha Rangappa and Chuck Rosenberg on our program last night pointed out, right? It`s just a different ballgame they`re playing. I mean, it`s a very different thing to secure an indictment and then a conviction against people for, you know, violations of the U.S. Criminal Code, particularly if those people are like, say, the ex-President of the United States, not something you`re going to rush, not something you`re going to do — you`re going to do lightly.

And yet, at the same time, the mountain of evidence being presented by the — by the committee, it does leave one thinking, if this isn`t a crime, then nothing is. Like, I keep having that thought. Like, if this was OK, everything he did was like, there you go, that`s the record, there`s something wrong.

JURECIC: The testimony that Hutchinson provided I think, really moved the ball forward in terms of showing, you know, potential criminal conduct by Trump. And I think you see that in how a number of legal — a number of legal commentators, lawyers have said, you know what, I didn`t think before this that Trump — you know that an indictment was likely. And now, the evidence is just overwhelming for potentially seditious conspiracy, obstruction of Congress, even inciting a riot.

And so, I do think, as you say, you know, the Justice Department here is balancing two different considerations. One is the danger of what happens if you do indict a former president. That is, I think we should be clear, that is a huge step. It could potentially be — I think it would be extremely ugly and dangerous. The question is, at what point does that become, you know, less dangerous than what happens if you don`t indict a former president, which could itself send the message undermining the rule of law, if you are powerful, you can get away with anything. And so, I think we`re watching the Justice Department negotiate that.

[20:30:08]

HAYES: Quinta Jurecic, thank you so much for your time tonight. Back in 2020. There`s a man inside the White House with a camera recording all sorts of stuff happening in the lead up to and after the election. He was subpoenaed by the committee. They have hours of his documentary footage and he will be here to talk to me next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:30:00]

HAYES: The January 6 Committee is still collecting new evidence in its investigation from people who are close to the president while he was trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election. And one of those people is British filmmaker Alex Holder. He was actually making a documentary about the election and had access to Trump as well as his oldest children and some of his senior advisors. He has nearly 11 hours of footage, which was subpoenaed by the January 6 committee.

Holder himself met with the committee last week. He`s also cooperating with prosecutors in Fulton County, Georgia as they investigate whether Trump illegally tried to influence the election results there. And Alex Holder who`s documentary series Unprecedented premieres this summer on Discovery Plus joins me now.

Alex, can you explain to me how the committee made contact with you or you made kind of the committee in terms of them learning about the existence of this footage which seemed like a fairly late-breaking revelation given that it`s existed for a long time?

ALEX HOLDER, DOCUMENTARY FILMMAKER: Sure. I mean, I probably have about 1000 different theories as to how they became aware of it. I mean, at the end of the day, we were very visible throughout the process. I mean, some people on the Trump side seemed to think that they didn`t know about the project. And we certainly did know about it — I mean, I don`t know how they could have possibly not known.

At one point, my cameraman was on the stage with Ivanka and I think CNN actually called to say, who is this random guy on the stage during the campaign? He`s interrupting our shot. So, we were there. We were very visible. And obviously, on the January 6 as well, that terrible day, we were also filming throughout the — that tragic events. So, I imagine there were lots of different ways they could have found out and they reached out and we`re cooperating with them as they requested.

HAYES: Did they — they did not subpoena you, they just — they asked for cooperation?

HOLDER: No, no, no. They did. The January 6 Commission did subpoena me, me and the material, and we`ve cooperated. Yes, absolutely.

HAYES: This is sort of random question. But 11 hours doesn`t sound like a lot actually, given how much footage goes into documentary filmmaking, particularly if it`s longer than, you know, than just an hour or two hours. Like is that — was there a narrow ask from them on the — on the footage they wanted from you?

HOLDER: Sure. So, we actually have about over 100 hours` worth of footage, which includes all the campaign rallies and the behind-the-scenes and some of the verities that we filmed throughout the campaign, as well as off the campaign as well, on the — during the Stop the Steal, the sort of the Stop the Steal rallies that took place after the election had finished. So, they specifically asked for raw interviews, which is what we gave them.

HAYES: And those raw interviews, as I understand it, are with people like the Donald Trump himself, Ivanka Trump, others like that?

HOLDER: Absolutely. Yes, exactly. It was — the president, President Trump — former President Trump, his three children, as well as the interview that we did with the vice president as well, and Jared Kushner.

HAYES: I suspect that you can`t tell me what`s in those interviews if I — if I asked you or you`re not going to for a variety of reasons. But can you describe the extent of your cooperation with the committee? I understand that you sat and spoke to them as well, right?

HOLDER: Yes, I sat with him for two hours. We went through some of — all their questions. I answered them very directly and honestly, and they were very professional. And if you want to see what`s in those — in that — in that material, you have to wait for the series to come out.

HAYES: There has been reporting that in subsequent to this, as the news has broken that you have had security, that you`ve hired security, that there`s maybe some fear about your security situation. I know that when people end up in the sort of crosshairs of some people in the MAGA movement, that can end up being the case. What is your experience been like?

HOLDER: Well, apparently, I`m an undercover FBI agent with a funny accent, or I am an MI6 spy. But yes, I mean, there`s all sorts of conspiracy theories being bandied about by people online. And I think after the various opinions I`ve received, including the one recently from Georgia, from Fulton County, you know, I`d rather be sort of safe than sorry, which is an unfortunate situation but I think in the circumstances, it`s necessary.

HAYES: Were you shooting in Georgia? I know that subpoena happened. Do you have footage from that — from that state? I know, Mark Meadows was there. Obviously, Trump was there for that big rally. Did you guys shoot down there?

HOLDER: We did, yes. For two rallies in fact, yes.

HAYES: And you`ve — and you`ve provided them or cooperated with that subpoena as well?

HOLDER: Yes, we`re in the process of cooperating and providing them with the materials that they`ve asked for? Yes, exactly.

HAYES: Did you talk to Mark Meadows at all during that period between the election and January 6?

HOLDER: I think I met him for about 13 seconds on the steps going up to Air Force One. And then I saw him again on Air Force One when he told us that they had to reschedule the interview that we were going to do on the plane with the former president.

[20:40:10]

HAYES: And you were filming on the day of the sixth as well or no?

HOLDER: Yes. So, we were there at the rally in the Ellipse, and then also for the event — well, for the — for the riot that took place outside the Capitol.

HAYES: What was going through your mind as you were — as you were watching that unfold in real-time and capturing it, documenting it?

HOLDER: I mean, it was obviously horrific. I mean, it looked like a warzone. It was — it was terrifying. My close friend, Michael, who was our DP for the project is there immersed in this insanity. But on the other hand, it was also wasn`t surprising. I mean, this was something that I actually had predicted the night before.

I mean, at the end of the day, when the rhetoric and the belligerence that has come out from the campaign all the way through past the election, and then you have these conspiracy theories and these lies about having actually won the election, when you didn`t win the election and you`re telling 75 million people that you won when in fact you didn`t, I mean, it was sort of an inevitable result which is terribly sad. But I sort of — it was — it wasn`t surprising which is — which is tragic.

HAYES: Could you feel that violent energy in the crowd that morning?

HOLDER: Yes, I mean, it was — there was this fervor, though it changed all the way through that day. There was this sort of this fervor, this passion, this almost religious belief in that something might happen. This sort of Hail Mary that the President might be able to actually succeed in this venture of trying to interrupt this ceremonial process and remain in office.

I mean, it was — it was really quite incredible. And there was a whole load of people as well that were there. It was all different types. There were children. There were parents. There was sort of this like very odd carnival like atmosphere that then turned into something that was just — I mean, it was like — it was like a warzone.

HAYES: All right, Alex Holder, thank you so much for making time for us. I appreciate it.

HOLDER: Pleasure. Thank you.

HAYES: Coming up, the fight to save democracy vote by vote, state by state. Stacey Abrams joins me ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:45:00]

HAYES: Today, arguably the most consequential and disastrous Supreme Court term in recent memory ended. And it was also the beginning of a new chapter, one that will include the first Black woman to sit on the court. At noon, Justice Stephen Breyer`s resignation went into effect with conclusion of the term and Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson was sworn in.

I really got to wonder what was going through Justice Jackson`s mind as that was happening now particularly as she takes her seat on a court with only two other liberal justices and a majority that is completely recklessly politicized and apparently out for blood. All you can do right now, if you are Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is put your head down, attend to the work of doing what you can to preserve American democracy and constitutional governance and have faith that things will change, and that others will come to your aid because for all of their prodigious talents, she Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Elena Kagan, cannot do it alone.

And I truly hope that President Joe Biden and the Democratic members of Congress who have all rightfully cheered Justice Jackson on understand that simple yet inescapable fact.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:50:00]

HAYES: It`s been less than a week since the Supreme Court took away the 50- year-old right to an abortion and the ramifications of that decision are now playing out state by state, hour by hour really across the country, with Democrats trying to protect access to reproductive health care and Republicans trying to end it.

Take for example, what`s happening right in Georgia — right now in Georgia. The current governor is Republican Brian Kemp. He signed a bill in 2019 that bans abortions before most people even know they`re pregnant. That bill is currently being held up in a court of appeals. And Kemp is now asking the court to let the band go into effect immediately pursuant to the Supreme Court`s decision.

So, that`s what Brian Kemp`s stance on abortion. But Kemp is up for reelection this November. His opponent is Democrat Stacey Abrams. She not only supports abortion rights, she`s also pledging to pass legislation to protect a woman`s right to an abortion if she becomes the next Governor of Georgia. Those are the very real stakes, the very real consequences in a post Roe America. And Stacey Abrams joins me now.

I`m wondering if you could start just with an explanation of where things stand in your state right now for women and their reproductive health care.

STACEY ABRAMS (D-GA), GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: Right now, women are in extreme danger. Georgia Governor Brian Kemp passed a law in 2019 that he gleefully signed that eliminates access to the right to an abortion after six weeks. Most women don`t know they`re pregnant before six weeks.

And what exacerbates this crisis is that 82 of the 159 counties, so half of the state, does not have an OBGYN. 18 counties don`t have a general medical — general family doctor, nine counties have no physicians at all. We refuse to expand Medicaid. We have the second-highest maternal mortality rate in the nation. So, pregnant women die more in Georgia. And if you`re a Black woman, then your likelihood of dying is three times higher. And Black people comprise 33% of the state of Georgia.

And so if you`re a woman, you are in danger. If you are a Black woman, you are in extreme danger. And if you are a person in this state, Brian Kemp has no interest in actually serving your needs. And that will be the law of the land as soon as the very conservative 11th circuit sends down its edict and says to the state of Georgia that forced pregnancy is now the law of the land.

HAYES: I just want to make sure I understood what you said at the beginning of that, that basically half of the counties in your state — you`re not talking about abortion clinics are actually abortion. You`re saying half the counties don`t have an OBGYN practicing in the county?

ABRAMS: They do not have an OBGYN in the County. Georgia is facing an extreme doctor shortage. We are facing a nursing shortage. And what this law will do, it say that you have to secure services that do not exist in order to protect your health to make medical decisions. And they know they`re setting an impossible standard that cannot be met. The one possible way of meeting that standard would be expanding Medicaid so we could draw down more dollars and encourage more doctors to come to Georgia.

But Brian Kemp both refuses to expand Medicaid in an act of cruelty that defies understanding. And he has signed this law that is going to deny access to women who cannot get service without going 203 miles outside of the state assuming they have the resources and the context to get outside of the state of Georgia to get access to health care.

HAYES: You know, I was looking at polling on this — on the issue of abortion in the state of Georgia. Some stuff from the Atlanta Journal- Constitution now, but this is back in January, although I think things probably even gotten more along the lines of what they saw. And I was — I was pretty struck.

This is a question about that 2019-2020 law that Kemp signed, right, the six-week ban. Do you support or oppose that law going into effect? Support: 37.9 percent, opposed: 53.9 percent, don`t know: eight. Would you like to see the Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade decision or not? Yes, overturn Roe v. Wade: 23.9, no: 68 percent. Those are really striking majorities in a state that is very much a 50-50 state as we all know.

ADAMS: Absolutely. And that is one of the reasons this decision is both perplexing and so dangerous. It goes against the will of the people. But this is part of a national trend that we are seeing with this devolution of constitutional rights to states that have pledged not to abide by those constitutional rights. And that is why Governor Kemp is so dangerous to Georgia. He`s dangerous to the women of Georgia. He`s dangerous to the families of Georgia. He`s dangerous to the economy of Georgia.

And he has no interest in solving the problem. In fact, he`s indicated he would expand that law to make certain that the exemptions that exist for incest and rape are removed. And let`s be clear, this would criminalize women. It would prosecute them. It would put doctors in prison for up to 10 years. And this could include a miscarriage that gets misread or investigated as an act of abortion. It would also outlaw abortion pills, medical abortion. This law is dangerous.

We know that women die in pregnancy. We know that women need the ability to make medical decisions. And Brian Kemp has said that the right to make these medical decisions will not exist for most women in the state of Georgia.

HAYES: You know, something else we`ve seen in other states. I haven`t seen any one specifically in Georgia yet proposed this, although I imagine it will — it will be sooner. Our increasing efforts to criminalize travel to other states, you know, use jurisdictional discretion to prosecute things that happen outside of state lines. There`s been talk about criminalizing speech. I mean, a clear First Amendment problem of counseling women where they can obtain abortion care.

I got to imagine given the record of your state`s state legislature both in the House and the Senate, these are the kinds of bills that are going to be coming towards a governor`s desk after this Midterm election.

ABRAMS: They not only will be coming, they`ve already started. There are those who are calling for a special session. During the last session, there was an attempt to outlaw being able to receive abortion pills through the mail. And I encourage people to go to my website, StaceyAbrams.com, to learn more about our reproductive health platform.

But we need people to understand that Georgia is the tip of the spear. And if we can stop these laws here in Georgia, if we can reverse this trend, we can do so much not only to protect the women of Georgia, but to protect women in the south. We need folks to pay attention. We need people in Georgia to understand that the governor is the last hope that we have. And this current governor has no interest in serving the women of Georgia, serving the families of Georgia, and he should not have this job.

HAYES: We got some news today from the Supreme Court about taking up a case about gerrymandering. I don`t have time to get into that with you, but I`m raising it because I would like to speak with you about it because your state has also been ground zero for all kinds of different means of essentially, massaging, rigging, hijacking democratic processes so as to barricade Republicans inside a majority in what we all know is a very evenly divided state. So, maybe I can have you back to talk about that.

Stacey Abrams who is running for governor in the state of Georgia, thank you so much.

ABRAMS: Thank you.

HAYES: That is ALL IN on this Thursday night. “MSNBC PRIME” starts now with Ali Velshi. Good evening, Ali.

ALI VELSHI, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, Chris. Have yourself a great evening. And thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. It was an historic moment at the Supreme Court today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KETANJI BROWN JACKSON, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, U.S. SUPREME COURT: I Ketanji Brown Jackson do solemnly swear —

JOHN ROBERTS, CHIEF JUSTICE, U.S. SUPREME COURT: That I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.

(END VIDEO CLIP)