Summary
Former U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman details corruption in Trump DOJ. The Senate is to investigate Trump DOJ interference. Judge Cannon unseals portions of the Mar-a-Lago affidavit. The January 6 panel weighs new DOJ cooperation after flurry of Trump world subpoenas.
Transcript
ANDREW KIRTZMAN, AUTHOR: And then you`re not. And that`s where Donald Trump comes along. And that`s where Giuliani`s desperate efforts to stay relevant comes into play. And to answer your question, he stayed with Trump as kind of a dead-ender because Trump was the only way that he`s kind of --
JOY REID, MSNBC HOST: Because he was on a dead end.
KIRTZMAN: Yes.
REID: Irrelevant.
KIRTZMAN: Yes, the only way he could survive.
REID: Yes, it`s a fascinating story -- fascinating story. Definitely, we`ll check it out. Andrew Kirtzman, author of Giuliani: The Rise And Tragic Fall Of America`s Mayor. Thank y`all -- thank you very much. And that is tonight`s REIDOUT. "ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES" starts right now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST (voiceover): Tonight on ALL IN.
RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: You believe Barr forced you out of that job at SDNY because he no doubt believed that by removing me he could eliminate a threat to Trump`s reelection.
HAYES: Just when you thought it couldn`t be any worse than it looked.
GEOFFREY BERMAN, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY, SDNY: We were very close to inviting that case around the time I got fired. And Barr knew about the case.
HAYES: Tonight, Andrew Weissmann on the stunning revelations from the SDNY prosecutor fired by Donald Trump.
Then, what we`re learning from newly unsealed portions of the Mar-a-Lago affidavit, and the Republicans unveiled their plan to ban abortion nationwide.
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): I thought it`d be nice to introduce a bill to define who we are.
HAYES: Senator Amy Klobuchar on the instant overwhelming backlash to Lindsey Graham`s plan.
GRAHAM: Give me a chance to vote on this bill.
HAYES: When ALL IN starts right now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES (on camera): Good evening from New York. I`m Chris Hayes. Well, it was as bad as it looked. In fact, it was even worse. I`ve had a lot of occasions to say that in the Trump years of American life, but this new example of Donald Trump`s misconduct in office is about as clear as it gets. It comes directly from the former United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, arguably the most powerful and active district in the entire country.
For two and a half years, that man you see there, Geoffrey Berman, served in that role as the head of that district during the Trump administration. Berman has written a new book out today in which he details several instances when Donald Trump abused the power of the Department of Justice. As Berman told Rachel Maddow last night, Trump and his DOJ repeatedly tried to use the Southern District to protect his allies and punish his enemies.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BERMAN: I wanted people to understand the full scope of the outrageous and improper political interference by Trump`s Justice Department in the cases of the Southern District of New York that demonstrates what Trump is capable of and what he`s likely to do. And it also provides a frontline view of just how vulnerable our justice system is.
Trump turned the department into his own personal law firm. He put in people who would do his bidding. And they would, you know, target Trump`s political enemies and assist Trump`s friends. And it was a disgrace.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: We should note, as Rachel did last night, Berman did raise some alarms at the time. It wasn`t all just kept tight-lipped until the book came out. And of course, this kind of behavior is no surprise from the foreign president. In fact, targeting political enemies was one of the central promises, the central theme, arguably, of Donald Trump`s 2016 campaign.
Remember how often he called for his opponent, Hillary Clinton, to be locked up. Even replaced his first Attorney General Jeff Sessions after Sessions failed to lock the right people up and Trump routinely berated him for doing so on Twitter. Jeffrey Berman stories from his time in the Southern District make it clear that behind the scenes, it was even worse than that.
The ex-president`s second attorney general, Bill Barr, and other senior officials in the Department of Justice would actually call up Berman`s office and explicitly tell them who they did or did not want the Southern District to prosecute. Berman recalls one instance in September 2018, two months before the Midterm Elections, when a DOJ official called his deputy. As a New York Times describes it, "After citing the recent prosecution of two Trump -- prominent Trump loyalists, the official said the office which had been investigating Gregory Craig, a powerful Democratic lawyer, should charge him and do so by election day."
According to Berman, the official told his deputy, "It`s time for you guys to even things out." And Berman`s office declined to prosecute Craig. Get this. The department sent the investigation to federal prosecutors in Washington where Craig was indicted, tried on a single count in making false statements, was acquitted by a jury in less than five hours.
Berman also details what happened when Bill Barr tried to push him out. Earlier today he told my colleague Nicolle Wallace about his strategy to get Barr to back down.
[20:05:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BERMAN: At the very end of my tenure, there was a situation where, you know, Barr was going to impose an outsider who He trusted in charge of the Southern District of New York. And at that point, I went public. I was noisy. You know, I don`t think there`s precedent.
NICOLLE WALLACE, MSNBC HOST: You played some killer, killer off his politics.
BERMAN: I don`t think he`s a precedent in the Department of Justice for what I did. I sent out a press release. And I told the entire country what Barr was trying to do, how he had crossed the line. And I use the language from the obstruction of justice statute. And it was because of that --
WALLACE: Intentionally.
BERMAN: Very intentionally. And it was because of that very noisy exit that Barr back down.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Now, in the end, Barr did fire Berman, though Berman was able to put his trusted deputy in charge. And as he told Rachel Maddow last night, the reason for what was exact -- that was exactly what it looked like. Berman was a threat to Trump and his agenda.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MADDOW: How was your work as U.S. Attorney a threat to Trump`s reelection?
BERMAN: Well, at the time I was fired, the Southern District of New York was working on a couple of politically sensitive cases. One of those cases is the Steve Bannon We Build The Wall case. And we were very close to indicting that case around the time I got fired, and Barr knew about the case. And as you know, that case was indicted by the Southern District of New York by Audrey Strauss who took over as Acting U.S. Attorney after I was fired, and she brought that prosecution.
And then, you know, President Trump pardoned Steve Bannon, which was an outrageous pardon. But that`s one of the cases that we were investigating and we were very close to indicting. And the other case was a Ukraine investigations arising out of the Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman indictments. And that was something that we had been investigating for quite a while and then we continued to investigate for quite a while. And both of them were very sensitive.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Now, as Berman mentioned, the case against Steve Bannon has become notorious. After Berman was fired, federal investigation against Bannon continued. In August of 2020, U.S. Postal Inspectors arrested Bannon onboard a Chinese billionaires yacht in the Long Island Sound. He was charged with fraud and then subsequently pardoned by Donald Trump in Trump`s final hours in office. That`s after January 6 and after all Bannon did to promote the coup.
That pardoned whoever does not preclude Bannon from facing state charges. And just last week, he was charged by the Manhattan district attorney with essentially the same crimes related to his alleged scheme to defraud donors to his We Build The Wall Organization. And it looks like the prosecutors in New York have much of the same evidence against Bannon, the Department of Justice had accrued.
Now, the other investigation Berman cites as being particularly threatening to Donald Trump`s reelection is the one around the ex-president`s attempt to pressure Ukraine into investigating his then-opponent Joe Biden. You might remember those two names Berman mentioned, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman. They were associates of Trump`s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani who kind of ran errands for Giuliani. They helped Giuliani and his pressure campaign with Ukrainian officials.
According to Lev Parnas, they took their orders from Giuliani. In a 2020 interview, Parnas told Rachel Maddow he did not do anything without the consent of Giuliani or Donald Trump. Now, Lev and Igor have both been sentenced to prison time for their roles in that scheme, but Giuliani is walking around free. We know he was also under investigation by the Southern District of New York as of 2019.
In April of last year, the FBI searched his home and office, seized his phones and computers. Two months later, a federal judge appointed a special watchdog to review that seized material and recommended where prosecutors can view. Still, nothing has come of this investigation. Just last month, the Times reporting Giuliani is unlikely to face charges. But Giuliani, like Steve Bannon, seems incapable of keeping himself out of legal trouble.
While he may have avoided charges in that Ukraine scheme, he is now a target in the criminal investigation to election interference in Georgia where he actively attempted to overturn the election. There`s every reason to believe the current January 6 federal investigation which is growing larger and larger by the day may end up on Giuliani`s doorstep as well given how intimately involved he was with helping Donald Trump plan and execute the insurrection.
But, of course, here`s the thing. If Donald Trump were to be reelected, none of this would matter. That`s the explicit promise of another Trump term. There will be more Bill Barrs at the Department of Justice, probably even more craven figures than Barr, and more Rudy Giuliani`s and more Steve Bannon, and there will be fewer Geoffrey Bermans standing up to do the right thing. They will be replaced by MAGA authoritarian lackeys willing to convert the government into a ruthless weapon for Trump`s personal use and power. And there will be no one standing in his way. That is also the explicit warning for people like Berman who has now joined the legions of those who have left the circle of Trump`s influence to warn in the loudest, clearest voice possible that it is exactly as bad as it looks.
[20:10:32]
Andrew Weissmann spent years working in the Department of Justice, most recently served as a lead prosecutor for Robert Mueller`s Special Counsel Investigation. And he joins me now. Andrew, first let`s just start with some level setting. For folks that don`t know the way the Department of Justice works, the way that a given district works, in the U.S. Attorney`s Office works. The idea of a senior Justice Department official calling up the office of a district and saying prosecute this person, don`t prosecute that person, do it by Election Day, have you ever heard of such a thing?
ANDREW WEISSMANN, FORMER LEAD PROSECUTOR, ROBERT MUELLER SPECIAL COUNSEL INVESTIGATION: Well, the do it by Election Day, that`s outrageous. That is, of course, a no. There are some investigations that are so sensitive or so important that Main Justice does get involved. I`ve been a prosecutor in the field in New York, and also at Main Justice, and of course, you`re in the field, you`d never want to hear from Main Justice.
But you know, having been in Main Justice, there is a reason for them to be there. And sometimes you really do want to make sure that the field office is complying with appropriate policies. And you know, it can -- you can play it out in a different setting where they`re acting -- where the field is acting outrageously and you want Main Justice to be saying, you know what, that`s not consistent with our policy. It`s not consistent with what we`ve done with other people facing similar crimes.
So, there is a give and take. There is a natural friction between Main Justice and the field. What Jeff Berman describes, however, is not that, just to be clear, saying that you`re going to open investigation to John Kerry based on the Logan Act, which is not prosecuted. And by the way, the Republicans were the ones who went -- were flipping out when they thought that the Obama administration was looking at the Logan Act for Michael Flynn, which they weren`t.
So, you know, he`s describing something that is really not a question of Main Justice getting involved, it`s that Main Justice getting involved in a political way.
HAYES: I mean, what struck me was the John Kerry and Greg Craig examples, right. So, we had -- we had pretty good examples of -- and here, we now have tangible evidence, right, of using the Department of Justice to put pressure to drop increase into people that are allies. But the more -- the even more dangerous power, right? Like, we see this in Turkey. We see it in Russia, obviously. Like, the prosecutorial power is one of the ultimate powers the state wields. And if it`s wielded essentially to go after dissidents or people that you don`t like, politically, then you`re not really living in a free society anymore. And so, to call up and be like, go after Greg Craig, puts you on the edge of something that`s pretty dark.
WEISSMANN: That is the fundamental truth here and the main point of books like Geoff Berman`s and many other people talking about how this is an unwritten rule at the Department of Justice because the Department of Justice is part of the executive branch. So, a president has the power to dictate what they can and cannot do. And at times, if it`s a general policy, like we should prosecute drugs more, we should prosecute drugs less, that`s fine.
But when it comes to saying we`re going to prosecute Democrats, but not Republicans, that actually is antithetical to living in a country where there`s a rule of law. And that is a norm. It is not written into the Constitution. And as you pointed out, Jeff Sessions, of all people who was so loyal to Donald Trump, he was asked precisely because he adhered to that norm when Bill Barr was willing to throw it to the wind.
HAYES: There`s an example here, which I thought was a small one but illustrative about the Michael Cohen charging document. And it was -- it was changed to remove references the idea that Trump acted in concert with and coordinate with Cohen to make illegal campaign contributions, even though it was very, very clear that there was pressure from above to do precisely that.
What do you think about -- when you think about a just -- Department of Justice in a Trump second term, how do you think of that?
WEISSMANN: I think I`ve said this before. I think of that, that I don`t have enough alcohol in my apartment to deal with that because there clearly would not be a rule of law. I mean, the -- you know, basically, he`s going to pardon whoever he wants to pardon, he can ask them to commit crimes for him, and you could have people who as you said are like Bill Barr but even worse. I mean, he was thinking of installing Sidney Powell as a special counsel.
So, the people he surrounded himself, he emulates, are an absolute nightmare to a working fundamental democracy. So, it`s really unfathomable to people in the department and outside of the department, and those are Republicans and Democrats who I think all share that view if you believe in a rule of law.
[20:15:44]
HAYES: Yes. Geoffrey Berman, we should say, is a lifelong Republican. He calls himself that in his book. Andrew Weissmann, thank you so much.
WEISSMANN: You`re welcome. Coming up, a flurry of activity on multiple investigative fronts as it relates to the ex-president. The January 6 Committee is now teasing a new hearing and we`ll share more evidence with the DOJ. Also, what we`re learning tonight from a newly unsealed portion of that Mar-a-Lago affidavit. That`s next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:20:00]
HAYES: We are seeing a flurry of activity on two fronts surrounding the ex- President. First, the investigation into classified documents stolen from the White House. On that front today, a federal judge unredacted additional portions in the Mar-a-Lago search affidavit. From that document, we learned a Trump lawyer was told that all the White House records were located in the storage room and he "was not advised that there were any records in any private office space or other location at Mar-a-Lago. That suggested someone, quite possibly Donald Trump, lied to said lawyer.
Meanwhile, on the January 6 investigation, yesterday, we learned the DOJ has escalated its investigation into the coup plotters issuing 40 subpoenas to Trump aides, seizing phones belonged to top advisors. Today, the chairman of the January 6 Committee, Congressman Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, told reporters that the panel is looking at possibly resuming hearings on September 28, that they are looking into cooperating more with the DOJ.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. BENNIE THOMPSON (D-MS): I think now that the Department of Justice is being proactive in issuing subpoenas and other things, I think it`s time for the committee to determine whether or not the information we`ve gathered can be beneficial to the investigation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: So, what does all this mean for these two investigations? Joining me now is Asha Rangappa, former FBI Special Agent, senior lecturer at Yale University. And Renato Mariotti, former federal prosecutor and legal affairs columnist with Politico.
Asha, let me start with you. There`s been some back-and-forth filings about the special master, about asking a Judge Cannon to review or change order that essentially stopped federal law enforcement from investigating pending the outcome of the special master. And then there was that redaction, that unredaction today of a portion of the affidavit Do you think there`s any significant we learned in that -- in that unredaction?
ASHA RANGAPPA, FORMER FBI SPECIAL AGENT: Oh, yes. There were several little tidbits that we learned from the additional redactions. We learned, for example, that the certification that was made to the Department of Justice by the lawyers, that everything had been returned in response to the subpoena, that the lawyers had been -- had "been advised" in passive voice, not clear by whom, that everything had been returned. And this starts to put -- to point the finger at Trump as being the one making these representations to his lawyers.
We learned that the Department of Justice obtained surveillance video going back as far as January of 2022 after they had served the subpoena and gone and come back, so they were able to see what was happening in that area in the six months leading up to going to Mar-a-Lago to retrieve these documents.
And finally, there`s one little bit were the classified documents that were returned in response to the subpoena, that the FBI agent who signs the affidavit says these were represented as having been kept in the storage room. And this is in the section where there is redacted probable cause that classified documents were found elsewhere. So this suggests to me that they were lied to even on that, and that the classified documents that they recovered on that trip were actually kept somewhere else. I suspect that they learned that from watching the surveillance video.
HAYES: Right, right. And that`s part of what obviously ends up leading to the search warrant itself. And we know that from both the sort of application and some of the subsequent reporting. There`s going to be a decision, Renato, on whether Judge Cannon will reconsider her initial order, which people found really surprising, some said unprecedented, some even called it, you know, lawless.
Basically, DOJ asking her to back down from some of that, said there were five of the special master but unfreeze our investigative abilities allow us to retain these 100 classified documents. What are the stakes here for her decision depending on which way she goes?
RENATO MARIOTTI, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, I will say, you know, her -- I think questionable is a good way of putting it or kind way of putting it. I think that if she reverses that, it`ll allow the Justice Department to move forward with the investigation, not impede the review of those records to determine the threats to our national security.
And I have to say, DOJ has really put her in a tough position because if she doesn`t do that, they really zeroed in on the parts of her opinion that are the least defensible, the easiest to overturn on an appeal. I think they`ve set themselves up well for an appeal. Som I think she is definitely going to be hard-pressed not to reverse herself or walk this back particularly because Trump`s team in this filing all but, you know, refuse to make any assertion regarding his supposed unredaction of these documents.
You know, they dance around that but the DOJ I think in the filing today make crystal clear what wasn`t said there. And I think that what wasn`t said in Trump`s filings speaks volumes.
[20:25:49]
HAYES: Let`s talk about the January 6, investigation committee hearing. You know, Asha, there`s been obvious tension between the Department of Justice and the investigation of the Committee. This has been publicly stated, sometimes. It`s been kind of implied and tacit. I`ve never quite understood what the tension was, but I did feel like we got a big clue from Benny Thompson today.
I mean, Thompson comes out and says, now that they seem like they`re doing their job, maybe we`ll now share some information with them. It was a pretty striking thing for him to say. And it connects to the fact that we`ve actually learned that in some cases, the DOJ has subpoenaed information that witnesses have already provided to the committee as opposed to getting it directly from the committee. How important is it for them to get on the same page?
RANGAPPA: I think this is a huge development. We`ve talked before, Chris, of this show that the Congress -- the Congressional Committee and DOJ have different purposes, and goals and timelines with regard to investigations. And that if they`re not really in coordination, they can even work at cross purposes. We`ve seen this before, for example, with Iran Contra.
But I think if they work in tandem, they can actually sort of become the legal wonder twins. You know, they can really leverage some of the benefits of both institutions. And I think one thing here is that Department of Justice is coming late to the game, quite frankly.
And, you know, the January 6 Committee has done a ton of investigation, and they have covered a lot of ground, especially at a time when the Department of Justice may be having a manpower issue just in terms of addressing all of the aspects of the January 6 investigation from the thousands of, you know, ground level minions that they`ve had to prosecute to all of these different threads, fundraising, the violence, the false electoral scheme, having so much of this groundwork done by the House Committee and having that shared, and working in a way that they won`t compromise each other and using Department of Justice is powerful tools. Because remember, people can`t stonewall a grand jury subpoena or get very far with things like executive privilege with Department of Justice like they can with Congress. So, I think this is a huge turning point.
HAYES: And finally, to you, Renato, on the sort of flurry of activity that we`ve had in the last week. You know, there`s this DOJ policy around politically sensitive investigations and the traditional 60 days. I think there`s a widespread expectation that things will kind of similar down and go dark to the election, and then maybe something will pop back up after then. Is that is that sort of your anticipation of what we`ll see and what the timeline is now?
MARIOTTI: I think that`s right, Chris. I don`t think we`re going to see any big, overt investigative steps until after the election. But boy, as you alluded to a moment ago, we saw a very big step recently in the reporting of not only that flurry of subpoenas, but I think the seizure of two phones is really important, because that means a judge signed a warrant indicating there was probable cause that evidence of a crime existed on those phones.
So, really, it suggests to me that the investigation of, for example, the fake electoral scheme is in high gear. And, you know, kudos to Congressman Thompson and others regarding getting that prompting DOJ to move that forward.
HAYES: Yes, it does look like that has been the causal mechanism here, at least in the timeline that`s how it looks. Asha Rangappa, Renato Mariotti, thank you both.
MARIOTTI: Thank you.
HAYES: Still ahead, more January 6 rioters are convicted for the roles and the attack and the ongoing threat from the far right, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:30:00]
HAYES: One of the most violent days in the United States for service members after 9/11 was January 6. We know that about 140 officers, 73 from the Capitol Police, 65 from the Metropolitan Police Department in Washington were injured. One of those individuals was D.C. Metropolitan Police Officer Michael Fanone.
On January 6, he was stationed in the Capitol tunnel where some of the most violent attacks occurred. He was then kidnapped by the rioters, dragged to the ground, and beaten and even tased. Body camera footage from the incident documented the entire disturbing attack.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Come on, MPD. Push.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Your guys -- fight the right people.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Push.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`ve got you, Mike. That`s my hand. You`re good.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Push them back.
(CROSSTALK)
MICHAEL FANON, FORMER POLICE OFFICER: Guys, don`t do this. I have kids.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[20:35:10]
HAYES: Officer Fanone suffered a heart attack and barely made it out of the riot alive. He sustained significant injuries including taser burns at the back of his neck, as you can see in this court filing. The man who used the taser on Fanone, a guy named Danny Rodriguez, was in court this afternoon for procedural hearing. He was indicted last year on eight counts, including inflicting bodily injury on an officer with a dangerous weapon. He actually confessed to police last year in a video that has since been made public.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DANNY RODRIGUEZ, CAPITOL RIOTER: What do you want me to tell you, that I tased him? Yes. Explain. Explain. Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Explain what were your thoughts at the Capitol when you tasered Officer Fanone or when he went into the Capitol building?
RODRIGUEZ: I thought that we were going to save this. I thought we were going to do something. I thought that it was not going to end -- happen like that. I thought that Trump was the state president, and they`re going to find all this crooked stuff. And we`re going to get -- I mean, we found out that -- we thought that we did something good.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Also in court today, three additional insurrectionists who attacked officers at the same tunnel where Fanone was assaulted. It include a man named David Mehaffie, who was known to internet sleuth as the tunnel commander. Today, he was convicted for his role in the attack on the Capitol during -- directing armed insurrectionists into the tunnel where much of the worst violence occurred. We`ve seen a bunch of it. There were two other men who were convicted on their most serious charges as well.
There are hundreds of other stories like these, violence and bloodshed from Donald Trump`s failed coup attempt. Coming up next, a war correspondent, someone who was there in war zones, one of the people who was also there on the ground on January 6 capturing it all.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:40:00]
HAYES: Some of the most harrowing frontline footage we got from the January 6 insurrection came from a reporter named Luke Mogelson. Mogelson is a correspondent who made his name covering the war on terror. He`s covered conflicts in places like Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, and Liberia. But on January 6, he was at the Capitol, a kind of warzone of its own.
He embedded with the Trump mob, following them into the capitol where he captured images like the ones you are seeing, providing one of the most comprehensive views of the scene as the violence broke out.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Defend your country. Defend your constitution.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: 1776.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You`re afraid of Antifa? Well, guess what, America showed up.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: What Mogelson chronicle that day fed into a larger thesis about the rise of extremism and the fraying of America`s social fabric. Luke Mogelson has documented that growing threat of extremism in a new book titled The Storm Is Here: An American Crucible. And he joins me now.
Luke, this is a great book and you`re a heck of a reporter. Some of that footage you captured on January 6 is some of the most indelible. What`s sort of prompted you to make the move from covering war zones to covering the far right and political turmoil here in the U.S.?
LUKE MOGELSON, CONTRIBUTING WRITER, THE NEW YORKER: Well, it was early in the pandemic in April when right-wing militias in Michigan occupied the State House in Lansing with rifles and equipped in body armor and helmets and accosted lawmakers. When I saw that footage and images from that day, I bought a plane ticket for Michigan.
HAYES: You write in the book about there was a kind of similarity, familiarity a little bit to those images you saw from some of the places you had covered, places in which essentially civil peace is broken down, in which trust and social norms have been replaced with essentially like the use of force. How much did you see on what you chronicled connect to some of the things you did see in warzones?
MOGELSON: Well, with January 6, specifically, it was a bit different because it was hand-to-hand combat, which is something else from shooting war. But it was mob violence, and that`s a very particular kind of violence, which I have witnessed overseas in Iraq, I saw a mob drag somebody out of a house and kill him once. And I was actually struck on January 6 by how similar the energy was to that day in Iraq in the sense that there was a -- there was a palpable performative quality to the violence, which is to say that the participants seem to be perpetrating the violence as much for each other and for themselves.
As for their victims, it was a kind of -- it was a way of demonstrating their dominance and assuring one another that they were capable of pulling such a thing off, and that they weren`t victims because that`s another similarity. I think that you can`t doubt the sincerity of their experience of victimhood. Even if it`s based on lies and propaganda, they truly feel that they`re oppressed and persecuted. And so, this kind of lashing out, even if it accomplishes no practical objectives, I think is -- was for them immensely just psychologically and emotionally gratifying.
[20:45:51]
HAYES: Yes, it`s really -- that`s very well said. I want to play actually that footage. You`re showing it as B roll but I want to actually play it which brings some of this to bear which is the -- there`s a moment in which the crowd that you`re recording and sort of embedded with starts attacking basically a bunch of camera equipment, AP camera equipment, and sort of celebrating their own strength and virility as they do so. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There you go. You won`t report the media. Now, you can`t.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You met a guy with some alcohol.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hey, everybody. CNN is hiding out behind Union Station.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Their headquarter is over there.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don`t know where that is though. I`m not from here.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Start making a list. Put all those names down and we start hunting them down one by one.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Traitors get the guillotine.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: You`re right about this sort of this sincerely felt victim -- victimization, even if it`s based on lies, but the actual sort of visceral, emotional, subjective experience of these folks is actual -- they feel humiliated, right? They feel -- they feel powerless, they feel victimized. How do you understand diffusing that? Like what is the tool that draws that that toxin out or that takes away that sense, which in other contexts often does lead people to violence or to all sorts of extreme action?
MOGELSON: Well, I think it`s very much tied up with fear. They`ve been provided all of these fantastical antagonists and villains and convinced of their reality. And so, I think a lot of the rage actually is symptomatic of fear. And honestly, I don`t know how you address that. You know, the purveyors of those conspiracy theories and nativist aetiologies have been incredibly successful at inculcating that fear in their followers and in trading the situation in which, you know, half the country is terrified of the other.
HAYES: Luke Mogelson whose new book about this movement and moment in American life is out today. He`s an incredibly exceptional, exceptional reporter. It`s a fantastic book, The Storm Is Here: And American Crucible. Check it out. Luke Mogelson, thank you for your time.
MOGELSON: Thanks, Chris.
HAYES: Still to come, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham rolls out a plan for a national abortion ban, but people on his own side are not that happy. Headaches all around for Republican candidates next
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HAYES: Today, South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham proposed what would be the first-ever nationwide abortion ban. It would drive a stake for the heart of the last vestiges of Roe v. Wade and federalize the anti-abortion right-wing politics of the Supreme Court.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GRAHAM: We should have a law at the federal level that would say after 15 weeks, no abortion on demand, except in cases of rape, incest, to save the life of the mother. And that should be where America`s at. I look forward to the debate. I look forward to the vote. If we take back the House in the Senate, I can assure you we`ll have a vote on our bill.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: This bill, if passed, would make the same type of abortion ban that was actually at issue in Dobbs v. Jackson women`s health. That`s a Mississippi law that was at issue in that -- in that case. That`s the case that the court used to get rid of federal abortion rights. It would make that Mississippi law effectively the law of the land.
Keep in mind, up until now, Republicans including Lindsey Graham had been insisting they wanted Roe overturned because the right to an abortion or abortion restrictions should be left up to the individual states.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GRAHAM: The point I`m trying to make is I`ve been consistent. I think state should decide the issue of marriage and state should decide the issue of abortion. I have respect for South Carolina. South Carolina voters here I trust to define marriage and to deal with the issue of abortion.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[20:55:02]
HAYES: But apparently doesn`t have trust for I don`t know the voters of California or Kansas or Minnesota or New York because now Graham is reversing course. It`s easy to see why. Republicans are facing some pretty bad polling on abortion. According to a recent survey from the Wall Street Journal, 60 percent of voters think abortion should be legal in all or most cases. That`s up from 55 percent in March.
That same survey showed the ruling in Dobbs made more than half of voters more motivated to vote in Midterm Elections. And you see that`s mostly weighted towards Democrats and Independents. That`s why Lindsey Graham is trying to energize his own party`s anti-abortion grassroots while attempting to tip the debate back towards what he thinks is more favorable terrain.
But make no mistake. He is introducing what would be an unprecedented federal abortion ban. If you`re living in Michigan or Pennsylvania states that currently have access to abortion, this ban would come for you, same for California, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut. It means no matter what state you live in, abortion is absolutely on the ballot for November.
For more on the Republican plan to ban abortion, I`m joined by Senator Amy Klobuchar Democrat from Minnesota. She serves on the Judiciary Committee, and she joins me now. I suspect I know where you are on this kind of legislation, but I will ask you if you think this kind of thing is a good idea and whether it would get a single Democratic vote.
SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR (D-MN): It would not. And I want to make clear for your viewers here. It is actually abortion ban immediately in many of the states because it is a 15-week ban in states that haven`t put anything in place except to follow the Roe v Wade precedent. In the other states, 12 of them don`t even have exceptions for rape or incest. That would remain, Chris.
So, basically, he`s allowing the states that have already banned abortion right away to have that stay in place. And then all the other states like Minnesota, which is an island along with Illinois in the Midwest, they would have to follow his federal ban which is at 15 weeks. And I mean, it is -- so, it is much worse than it sounds just when you say 15 weeks.
HAYES: Yes, and it wouldn`t -- obviously, yes. So, it wouldn`t pre-empt -- it wouldn`t preempt those state laws that are far more restrictive. What do you think about the political reaction that we`ve seen? I mean, it was really fascinating to me today. Graham comes out. He wants to make a bigger show of this. Thom Tillis says, I`m really thinking about inflation in the railroad strike and Mitch McConnell says I don`t really want to talk about it. And everyone comes running away from it almost as soon as it comes out and gets mad for anyone covering it. What does that say to you?
KLOBUCHAR: Well, a lot of people want to distance themselves from it. That`s for sure. But I think it`s really important to know that difference even for those candidates out there that say, oh, I wouldn`t support what Lindsey Graham is saying on the Republican side. The question of them is, would they put Roe v Wade into law? Would they correct the Supreme Court reversal of 50 years of precedent to simply say, women should be able to have the freedom to make their own decision about their health care and not have Ted Cruz in the waiting room, and not have politicians make the decision?
That`s what the candidates have to answer because no matter what they think of Senator Graham`s proposal, none of them that`s far as I know, on the Republican side and running for Senate here, they are all extreme when it comes to abortion. And they`ve been very clear in order to get the endorsement of their party that they actually would not allow for the Roe v. Wade protections for women`s health.
HAYES: I know, in your state, obviously, abortion is at the center -- abortion rights at the center of the gubernatorial race in that -- in that state, your state, which I think is fair to say, a pro-choice state in its sort of public opinion and its laws at the moment. I mean, one of the things I think that Graham illustrates is that when you combine this with the recent petition to have the 14th Amendment find a fetal personhood, right, constitutional right to life for, you know, a fetus that obviously the end goal here is total nationwide abortion ban of the movement that brought us to this point. It seems crazy for anyone to think otherwise, unless you think I`m wrong.
KLOBUCHAR: No, you`re right. That is exactly -- Mitch McConnell himself has said that, that that`s where they`re headed. That`s what they would do if they took over the U.S. Senate and the House. And people should make no mistake about that. And that is why you saw the voters of Kansas turn out in droves, 500,000 of them, more than the total it even voted at all in the last Midterm Election, to be able to uphold women`s right to make their own health care decisions.
It`s why you see those races in Alaska and in Hudson Valley in New York. You saw the results there, Chris. And that is that people are voting that we didn`t expect to vote actually before. And then you add to that the celebration we had at the White House today the fact that Democrats have the backs of the American people. And that means bringing down the cost of prescription drugs, something I`ve been working on since I got to the Senate leading the bill for negotiation.
We finally took on the pharmaceutical big pharma and said you`ve got to be able to allow for a negotiation or to an investment in climate change or the name of the bill, the Inflation Reduction Act, brought down the deficit by $305 billion. Those are all things where Democrats are actually making very clear whether it`s for the burn pits for our veterans, we have peoples back.
So, you contrast that with their extreme, and you contrast that with our awesome. I was just with Mandela Barnes, our candidate in Wisconsin. We have some incredible candidates all across the country.
HAYES: Senator, thank you so much. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, we appreciate it.
KLOBUCHAR: Thank you.
HAYES: That is ALL IN on this Tuesday night. "ALEX WAGNER TONIGHT" starts right now. Good evening, Alex.