The growing evidence that the President of the United States is a criminal
This episode is brought to you by Cox. We can't do a TV from Cox. You can find all your favorites, all in one place, have the YouTube, you Bet El what about that? Netflix thing net Netflix, too. And although superhero movies, contour has all the latest titles on demand. Oh my grandkids love that big green guy, though. I prefer the one with the hammer myself. Okay. I think we're done here now. Get all your favorite apps shows and movies, right? On contour TV from Cox. Tonight on all in if he were any other person in the United States pay would be Terry d- out in handcuffs as a president returns from Europe and the Democrats prepare hearings on the motor report. If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime. We would have set sail tonight, the plane evidence that the president of the United States is a criminal. So the vote. Feeling through. Plus, we are in worse shape for a recession now than things that slowed down with bad job, numbers, and another trade war looming Robert Reich on the growing warning signs of recession then more clear evidence that Republicans were rigging elections in North Carolina. While yesterday was a big day for Joe Biden and the rest of the twenty twenty field and why the current president today? Bush shouting at the moon, you'll have to explain that. That sounds tough when all end starts right now. Good evening from New York, I'm Chris, as the president of these United States Ramic campaign in two thousand sixteen four that office whose unofficial slogan was locker up. It was both his main argument against his opponent and a rallying cry on the campaign trail with Trump fans putting Hillary for prison on t shirts and bumper stickers and yard signs. The narrative of Hillary Clinton's supposed criminality was advanced with an assist from the FBI director in the mainstream press by Russian trolls disrupting the election and principally by Trump TV. Welcome to Hannity. Tonight. Hillary clinton. Follow my words, the media won't say she should be in jail, not on the campaign trail. It's about time. Somebody said it on the jail in the jail, not the trail rhymes, even better than locker up that Sean Hannity saying that now two and a half years later, that narrative is not going away just ahead. This is serious. It just leads Sean Hannity show this week on Monday night of this week that was his top story about Hillary should be a jail. And these days when the president holds political rallies. The crowd still breaks out into its favorite champ. Normal stuff locker her up in two thousand nineteen at a presidential rally that was just over two weeks ago. But now well now we've come to the point that the president this president is very upset that the speaker of the house, Nancy Pelosi looking at all the evidence seems to have concluded that he's a criminal who should face prosecution and prison time, and the president's good pal. Sean Hannity is positively shocked that she would suggest jailing a political opponent. Speaker Pelosi now, apparently telling senior democrat she'd like to see Trump behind bars. Based on. No actual crime. She wants a political opponent locked up in prison. That happens in banana republics beyond despicable behavior. And by the way, they would literally turn it many ways the USA into a country, we no longer recognize the best part is that he uses locked up with no hint of irony. Now, I will say that the term or welling gets thrown away, too much. But it really is earned in this case from nineteen eighty four. The past was alterable, the past never have been altered Oshii was a war with East Asia Oceania had always been at war with East Asia. Then there's Hannity's claim and better than there. The president committed and I quote him here. No actual crimes. In fact, there's overwhelming evidence that the president unlike Hillary Clinton has committed a whole bunch of crimes. I mean, let's remember this thing he was affected named as an unindicted co-conspirator individual one in the illegal campaign finance game that he according to filings. Federal court directed and coordinated with his former fixer, Michael Kohn, who is now serving a federal prison sentence in part for that crime. That's before we even get to the mode. Reporter volume two of that four hundred and forty eight page report lays out almost a dozen different instances in which the president attempted to obstruct Justice, a crime for which a thousand former federal prosecutors say, he would have been charged if he were not the sitting president, and if you're wondering what obstruction of Justice? Looks like or sounds like how about the president's personal attorney calling up the lawyer for cooperating witness to put the squeeze on him and dangle a potential pardon. That is pretty obviously, what was going on in the voice mail left by John Dowd, for Michael Flynn's attorney, which Muller included his report. But now we have the audio. This is John again. Maybe a sympathetic. I understand your situation and let me see here. Here. Stay in startup parents. If you have. If he's all right. You could be. With. Understand that you can't joint such. If the other hand. Commission implicates the president. Then we've got a massive security issue or maybe some serious. I don't know some as you got to. That's a deal with of those. So. You know then. You know, we need sometime has. For the sake of. All all can without you having to give up any. Competent. So. And if it's a former. Remember what we've always said of. Feeling to inflame. Oh, that's nice. Let me know. And. I appreciate your listening and taking into lifestyle. I still. The case against president John MSNBC legal analyst mcquaid attorney who will be testifying before the House Judiciary committee on Monday, and Carolina. Also, former US attorney, and former Superior Court Judge Barbara we, we knew basically, what was in that voice mail. We had a transcript abbreviated transcript than full transcript, but listening to it as someone who has been a prosecutor is running us attorney's office. Like what does that sound like to you? Yeah. You know, I think it is far more compelling to be able to listen to a recording like that. Then to just read the dry words on a page because you can hear tone and inflection, but I hear two things in there that suggest that it's part of a pattern of obstruction of Justice. One is remember, this is a curling after Michael Flynn's lawyers have said he's withdrawing from the joint defense agreement where they're sharing privileged information. And he says, if you're cooperating, we're gonna need a heads up. And so he wants to know what's going on with the investigation. The other thing he says is a remember that President Trump feels about Michael Flynn. He's fond of him Korean favor with him. The other thing that's important is not to look at this in isolation but to look at it in the totality of the circumstances. And if you read Robert Muller's report, one thing you'll see is that it's the return phone call. That is also very compelling because when Flint's lawyer calls him back and says, no, we can't share information gender gets. Very upset with him says I take that as hostility from Michael Flynn and I'm going to tell President Trump about that. How steady? And so that is a kind of intimidation that could be seen as obstruction of Justice, when you look at the whole picture. How about you Carol? Yeah. Absolutely. I agree with Barbara. If I were if I were Michael Flynn's attorney and I listened to that voice mail being left on my phone. I would have just sat back in my chair and said, wow, I cannot believe I just heard that voice mail when you have a situation where you're, you're subject to retarget of an investigation, or you represent the subject or target of the investigation. And you think someone who is part of your joint defense group has left that joint defense group and is now cooperating with the government and you're going to leave voicemail. You're going to call them and talk to them. You have to try you have to do everything you can to be above reproach. You cannot leave an ambiguous, or, or suggestive, I is a better word a suggestive voicemail saying, you know, if if you, you know, if your client decides to cooperate one we really want to know what he's saying, and to don't forget right now. The president really likes it. I mean, that's what's so striking here is that this isn't just any ler. The president of the sitting if the lawyer for the sitting president of the United States, who leads us I mean, any lawyer, I think would be in really dicey territory doing this. But it also Barbara to me speaks of the broader issue, which is this is how the lawyer communicates he never comes out and says, what he's doing, but we can understand that. And that if you read the motor report, that turns up everywhere, all the time, no one's ever coming out and saying, like, Well, I, I mean, except for when the president says Russia, if you're listening like they're not actively saying that thing. But every message that is sent behind the scenes to obstruct or to Russia, where rushing cutouts sends an extremely clear message that you have to be an idiot not to understand. Yes, in that is typical in most cases, exactly are savvy enough, not to say, listen, I'm about to obstruct Justice right now. Let's do this thing that would be a legal people speak in code. They speak indirectly it's very nuanced. And sometimes that makes it difficult to prove such a case. But when you can look at the context, and you can look at. Pattern of behavior. That's when I think you can draw those reasonable inferences jury will typically instructed that you can't read someone's mind, but you can look at the totality of the circumstances and use your commonsense to figure out what's going on to that end say the Lanny Davis who, who represents Michael Cohen. Michael got a very similar message. So there is a peers a bit of a pattern. I wanted to ask about another legal issue before us. Caroline has both a former federal prosecutor and state judge. There's a there's a question now about impeachment proceedings. And whether they will if the house were to declare them, it would bolster their court cases for acquiring information and enforcing subpoenas, right? So it's one thing, the houses subpoena someone in the block executive privilege. And there's a theory of the case in an interview, Jamie Raskin said that there's brewing sentiment on the judiciary committee that without an impeachment inquiry. Democrats could suffer some losses in court in their efforts to compel the White House to cooperate with their oversight demands. What do you think of that legal theory? I, I think there's a lot to that just goes to show that when one side, raise the stakes. And the other side, feels it needs to raise it. It's takes, you know, both sides have to be careful about unintended consequences that may come back to bite them. You know, because you have now a district you now have a DC appellate court decision which will be the same court that would hear any, any litigation coming out of these challenges to the houses subpoenas, and that court has said that impeachment inquiries, are like judicial inquiries, and therefore fall under an exception to the grand jury secrecy rules. So what has happened now because of this very broad instruction that the White House is given a witnesses not to comply with subpoenas issued by the house. It has now ramped up discussion of actually starting impeachment inquiries in order to have better arguments in court that they should have access to all the grand jury information. So I do agree that has star. Being an impeachment inquiries going to give a little more leverage to the house. That's good to know baroque, quite and Carolina. Great to have you both for more of the political battle over the president's culpability and criminality. I'm doing my Matt well cheddar luxuries magazine, and Michelle Goldberg MSNBC political analyst and op Ed columnist in your time. So this is something I've been thinking about reading Chinaman's square remembrances. And there's this one moment where I think it's the Deng Xiaoping's deputy calls the head of the army the night before they send in the tanks and what he says, I talked to the chairman. He says, solve the problem tomorrow. Now, this is this is China where like there's no special counsel that you're worried about, and there's no grand jury law. Like you could just say, like go smash the protesters, but even in that context he doesn't say go smash the protesters he says he talks in code go back to any television regime any criminal enterprise. Nobody's ever come out and saying what they're saying. They're talking the way Jaylen down his talking. They called it the final solution. They do exactly. Right. Yes. I mean, the point is that like in any criminal enterprise in any system of government wrongdoing. Any one trying to shake down a witness. Like, that's how it sounds, I. But the reason that everybody that we're all bashing our heads against the wall. And the reason I think people feel so frustrated in some cases, despairing is because it is all out in the open. Right. This is a criminal enterprise. They do talk like cut, right? Mafiosos. I mean, the whole thing is so blatant and yet, there's no one who sort of stepping up to take this on and said people have been ground down by the relentless degradation of it. What's ground down, but it's also there's a political calculation, particularly among Democrats. I think Democrats Nancy Pelosi in particular want to be able to say lock him up because that's different than, than actually launching impeachment proceeding, but you want to be able to play to the base here, because the base has that feeling but an impeachment, that's a role of the dice from a democratic point of view, much more than it is, from say, justna Masha view, but I think right? But I think it's exactly wrong. I think lock him up is wrong. For basically the same way, as locker up with wrong, even though, I think the case is stronger here. I think clearly a declaration of basic norms, and civility. And no one Brooklyn. We should say things like that on a daily basis about the president of the United States. And I'm glad that we are. Yes. All that is true, but there's also a political problem and it's not an insignificant one, which is this public opinion polls right now are pretty clear that even though you can charge someone for obstruction of Justice, even if there is no proof of an underlying crime, whether or not lying a collusion conspiracy crime American people don't necessarily want to go there for that. And that is a political problem if it goes to the house, here's, here's what's important to me, and what's important about both the locker up chant and how sort of ugly and brutal, it is. And it was the first time I saw a breakout. I was sort of astounded and every time I say it breakout on, I'm astounded and astounded to watch on straight faced talk about how awful, it is the point is that it's not about wrath. Like that's what's so important, you can say, like I want to see him in jail later. I don't care one way or the other. What is the abuse of power and enforce? Right. That's fine. But I'm saying, like, in a narrow sense what it's about here is. Use of power and some guardrail for power, which really matters as a constitutional matter. And as a matter of the rule of law. So frustrating about this conversation. Is that the way that Trump in the conservative movement, that's caused around him? They so often are guilty, either of projection, or else, whatever they accuse other people of a statement about what they do or plan to do. So Trump kind of goes out there and says it Hillary Clinton's foundation was this corrupt slush fund. It turns out, naturally that Trump's foundation is this corrupt slush fund that has now been dissolved when you're talking about, it's just like, oh, they traded accusations, you know, when they're kind of empirical under. Yes, underpinning is so radically different, but, but I think that they are very good propagandists and they're very good at sort of derange in the conversation, so that it just seems as if you know, well, yet, now both sides are engaging in this sort of, in this sort of evisceration of norms. I'm curious to someone who's a sort of lifelong card carrying libertarian. How much the Ammash case resonates with you, and how much you feel like it resonates with your religion. I don't want to. I want to. Strongly I find myself nodding along when he says that the president acted with corrupt intent to Thornton investigation. I think got self evident. I think when he judge Napolitano, Fox News across the street, gene Healy from Kato make the argument that impeachment is actually an underused remedy for to dissuade poor behavior in the executive branch and to punish I I'm not an ingredient in all of this, but I do run up against the is this going to actually are we going to just protract ourselves, then twelve to eighteen months, not in terms of fatalism of a Republican runs Senate with people who don't have any morals, I grant that's going to happen anyway. But more of about in terms of American public, the American public really going to go through eighteen months twelve months of this, when there is no underlying conspiracy collision crime there. And I'm not sure you are. You are fairly persuaded on the merits just in terms of like, what it would mean. And what the guardrail, it would predict I think congress should dudes damn job, just basically basic level, like read the report and come up with conclusions and be honest about it in that sense. And so that's. In the way that much completely resonates with me. I don't know where we would lead, whether that would be a prevent thing to do. Well, I mean, I think that we're going through the next eighteen months regardless right yourself. Himself. So it's like the Democrats are passing the ball around, and like looking at the clock right, like, oh, look. He's polling at forty two percent, and there's election coming up. It's like well there's lots impeachment. Is this kind of superlative national trauma, and sort of watching this president, you know, break the law and subvert the country and profit from his office, with impunity is also a national trauma, first significant number of the American people. Right. And so it is obviously, I think that there might be a political argument against impeachment. I don't understand a moral or legal argument against it. All right, Matt Welsh shell go Burke. Thank you, both very much up next is Trump leading the country in new recession with his economic policies new signs point to. Yes that story coming up in just two minutes. Hi, it's Katy Tur. Wanna keep up with MSNBC while you're on the go. Subscribe to the MSNBC daily newsletter you'll get the best of what you've missed or in this unprecedented era of news, text MSNBC, two six six eight six six to subscribe. Just two weeks ago. President Trump got up to brag about these sixteen billion dollar handout, giving the farmers and ranchers to offset the damage done by his own trade wars. We will ensure that farmers get the relief they need and very, very quickly good time to be a farmer. We're gonna make sure that so today I'm announcing that. I have directed secretary produced to provide sixteen billion dollars in assistance to America's farmers and ranchers that all comes from China. Now, perhaps out. Surprisingly, other industries have been rocked by Trump's trade were asking for their handout, today, the main congressional delegation, asked the president to share some of that government cash with the Maine lobster industry, which has gotten hammered by retaliatory tariffs. We've lost about eighty percent of our mainland. China sales with a twenty five percent punitive tariffs. They just can't afford to buy from American shippers. They are buying from our Canadian, counterparts competition versus us. Another example, very real life consequences. The president's policy just today, we got a really bad jobs report, only seventy five thousand new jobs in may. When analysts expected about one hundred thousand more than that now important note of caution. These numbers are often revised down the line. But this also comes in a month that annihilated the markets Trump's unnecessary trade were escalated day by day with increasingly severe, and tangible effects, the American economy, it is pretty hard to unilaterally. Precipitate a recession from the Oval Office in the middle of a growing economy. But the president seems hell bent on making it happen. Twenty now Robert Reich, former secretary of labor under President Clinton. He's now the chancellor's professor public policy UC Berkeley after days, disciplining job numbers came out. He tweeted, quote, watcher wallets, if Trump blocks, Mexican good. The slowdown turns into a recession Robert, explain why you think that's the case. But first of all, Chris says you just said seventy five thousand new jobs is really bad. I mean you need one hundred twenty five thousand new jobs just to keep up with the increase in the in the labor force, and relative to where we have been in this recovery starts in two thousand nine it's a very bad jobs report overall, there is a slowdown. There's no question about that. But if you add onto that slowdown, all of the direct and, and slurry damage that comes from these tariffs tariffs against China retaliation from China tariffs third threatened against Mexico. I mean you could easily find the American economy in a recession certainly before the election. There's been a lot of debate about this. Right. Like, are the effects of this big enough to actually not it knock America off an expansion into recession, and I've seen people arguing on both sides that the sheer size of it, relative to the size of the American economy is big enough, and I've seen others argue it can. What's the case that it could? Well, it's the interaction Chris between the tariffs, and also the, the slowdown that is almost inevitable given how long this recovery has gone. I mean is don't go forever. They gradually down American companies and American individuals. Individual consumers are deep in debt. That's another thing that's not talked about very much, but that debt is also a problem. And then finally, you've got that tax cut for big corporations, and for the very wealthy that did not trickle down just added two trillion dollars over the next ten years to our debt now, put all of that together, and you get a an economy that is very, very vulnerable. We should know. There was a new study out. I think it was from a sort of it's from a sort of center, right outfit, we should note, but they say that, that the terrorist have already wiped out the tax Bill savings for average Americans, right that there were so paltry at the bottom that, just the tariffs that applied already. You're already net net. You've liked those out. Yes. And I know on new start another new study again not from the left. Another new study from a centrist thing. Take. Just out yesterday to all the tariffs go into effect. I mean, we're talking about China and the threatened tariffs against Mexico. You're talking about four thousand dollar Bill for the typical American American household. Now, remember, it was supposed to be a four thousand dollar bonus from the time Scott, but nothing trickle down. So this is a four thousand dollar negative for the typical household. There's also something just so ideologically ridiculous about the president slapping on tariffs running around yelling about how terrible socialism is, and how they're going to defend the free market enterprise, whatever. And then handing out welfare checks to the industries that are getting knocked her of the terrorists, and now you've got this classic competition in Washington for who's going to get the next check to the handout to the industry, that's being hurt by his tariffs. Well, that's why this corporate welfare, it's socialism for the rich, and it is harsh capitalism for everybody else, this is the story of Trump onyx and et is small wonder that you've got, you know, not only farmers, but. You've got everybody else. I mean, lobster people lobster in Maine, but you're also going to get a huge problem for the American automobile industry, particularly with regard to Mexico because those supply chains are totally integrated, you would have to rebuild all supply chains. Yeah, we're going to watch the automakers coming to Washington to ask pretty already. I already are Republican is one of the interesting things about this. You've got the US chamber of commerce, and most of the Republicans in the Senate who are saying, Trump don't do this. I mean, there's almost I can't think of anything that has United everybody against against the president. All right, Robert Reich. Thank you so much for tonight, pretty shit. Thanks, chris. Coming up, new details on the GOP campaign to gerrymander North Carolina and new evidence that Republicans lied to a federal judge about their own plans. That's next. You might remember this crazy story we covered last week about, what was hidden on the hard drive of a deceased GOP operative named Thomas hustled. Those hard drives revealed that hoffler played a central role in the Trump administration's efforts to add a citizenship question to the US census, they also showed that hot feller had explicitly written, the result of adding the schism ship question would be an electoral advantage for the Republican party, and white people. Now, we have another revelation from those same hard drives, according the watchdog group common cause hot fellers files also reveal that North Carolina, Republicans lied to a federal court in an effort to keep gerrymandered legislative district in place for as long as possible those districts have been ruled unconstitutional, but the North Carolina GOP insisted there was just not enough time to redraw legislative map, the forest special election hyphen, files televise different story here to explain Ari Berman senior. Report, mother Jones, author of gives the ballot the modern struggle for voting rights in America. Are you've been covering hoffler Eller and this case? So what do we learn from these new files? It's pretty remarkable Chris, what we learn is that Tom hoffler, drew congressional and state legislative maps in North Carolina that were struck out as a legal, racial gerrymander is, in fact, the state, legislative maps federal court said were among the most extreme Rachel gerrymanders ever seen by federal court. So pretty amazing language they said in two thousand sixteen you need to hold new elections in two thousand seventeen the North Carolina GOP said we have no time we haven't drawn the maps yet. Well, people discover seventy five thousand files on Tom Hoffa's hard drives, and what they find is at tough Hoffer has in fact drawn all of these districts. And so, basically the North Carolina GOP lied about the fact that hoffler had drew the map so they didn't have to hold special elections allowing them to prolong their supermajority in the North Carolina legislature for it entirely one more year. Wait a second, wait a second. So what what we've learned the I think. I didn't understand this. When I read it, what we've learned is that, when they go to the court, and they represent the we just there's no time to redraw maps. They actually had redrawn maps, exactly. They were sitting on the hard drive of this guy. They told the federal court said in legislative hearings. We haven't done anything to draw the maps. They look at offers files he's drawn at ninety seven percent of new Senate districts ninety percent of new house district he'd already done the work and now they're saying how for just did it on his own time. We didn't instruct it to all your decide to do in your free time is draw hypothetically, gerrymandered maps that is really remarkable. I mean, this is what they said to a federal judge. They didn't just like they represented this in court, they represented this in court. It's all under oath. They the court in fact, decided not to hold special elections, because they believe north kind of Republicans, when they said there was not enough time this allowed them to have a super majority in the legislature in one of the most important swing states in the country for another year as a result. There's a pattern here. Right. So we're seeing the census and we're seeing in North Carolina, which is it's not just using these tools, whether they're gerrymandering of the census. To kind of rig the game for your favorite constituencies, white people Republicans, but then the lying about it, which to me is just tell that they understand exactly what they're doing. They know that they are illegitimately, wielding power. They know there's a problem with doing a citizenship question to explicitly benefit, white people, which is why they're claiming they needed to enforce the Voting Rights Act, which everyone knows it's a complete lie. They know that they just can't outright gerrymander. So they had these different justifications for why they're doing it. Really, what this boils down to is they are trying to solidify their power by any means necessary. And now you have this remarkable confluence where the guy that did all the gerrymandering is the guy that's now trying to rig the sense. So it's really all come together and try to this long-term Republican strategy for long term minority rule. What's remarkable to is are the historical echoes here. I mean, I don't know how to are people with, with, with sort of what happens as reconstruction recedes, you know, south and Jim crow rises. But the politicians then often would say, like unindo we, it's not race, we don't we're not trying to stop people from voting. We just think there should be literacy tests, like, obviously people vote literacy tests, or we think there should be pulled tax or, or whatever it is. It was always a disingenuous, they were always lying about their motives to achieve precisely their aims, which was to make it harder for black people vote and easier for white people will political power. And there's a really uncomfortable resonance to what's happening here. And a lot of the rhetoric you see, now, for example, about voter fraud is so similar to the things that you hear after the civil war during reconstruction. I mean it's almost verbatim the kind of rhetoric we have and they're talking about. We need a knowledgeable electric, or we can't have literates voting or you don't want to diminish the value of the vote and all of these things, which is the same kind of arguments, we're hearing today, they know they can't succeed on the merits. They know that if you told people do you want to question, that's gonna explicitly benefit Republicans, do you want. Do you want the worst, Jerry racial gerrymandering Northcott has ever seen? People aren't gonna want, even some Republicans might not want it. So they're having these new things they're saying, oh, we're trying to better enforce the Voting Rights Act when we all know that's not true. The disingenuousness and outright lying here. Both these cases is really astounding already Burma. Thank you so much. Great to see you still ahead from ambitious. Clinton plan rollouts to Biden's abortion funding reversals been a big week in the Democratic Party policy primary, that's coming up. But first Trump craters his own moon policy in tonight thing, one thing to next. Thing one tonight, you may remember a couple of months ago here, we took a deep dive, and I mean a really deep dive into the Mike Pence archives. It is stated policy of this administration and the United States of America to return American astronauts, to the moon within the next five years. Yeah. We made the video look old timey. But Mike Pence really is out there, talking about how we going to the moon again right here, the twenty first century. As President Trump said, we will return American astronauts to the moon for the first time since nineteen seventy two the president has directed, NASA and administrator, Jim Brian Stein to accomplish this goal by any means necessary. Well, it's a good thing. Mike Pence has absolutely no pride whatsoever. Because the president has once again pulled the rug out from under him announcing today out of the blue. No, we're not going to the stupid moon and that's thing to sixty seconds. President Trump has been talking about going to the moon since he got into office. I he changed the national space policy to say that we would lead the return of humans to the moon in March. He sent Mike Pence out to announce a five-year moon trip timetable just last week. He announced a new moon partnership. Japan will join our mission to send US astronauts to space will be going to the moon will be going to Mars, very soon. It's very exciting. That was last week. And you know how the president gets when he's watching his shows. Well, here we go again, NASA is opening a space station, a more commercial activities. In other words, it's inviting you pardonable this as it is refocusing on the moon. The next sort of. The quest if you will. But didn't we do this moon thing quite a few decades ago? Yeah. We went to the moon already, who's dumb ideas as to go back the president watching Trump TV on his airplane made a tweet for all the money. We are spending, NASA should not be talking about going to the moon. We did that fifty years ago, they should be focused on the much bigger things we are doing, including Mars of which moon is apart defense and capitalist science explanation point. So there you have it. The mood is out. Also, it's part of Mars. I don't know. It's getting really tough to follow to be honest, but although someone probably should break the news to the head of moon force over here. Say it's too hard. Too risky to expensive history is written by those compare to dream and do the possible. Near fort today that caught my eye showing that quote, wealthy people and corporations have so much money they literally don't know what to do with it. There's an obvious Lucien here, which is to tax that well for public investment. But until that happens. Here's one thing they could do with all that extra cash. So today, I'm happy to announce that with our foundation. I'm committee. One hundred million dollars five hundred million dollars to the launch of a new national climate initiative. And I hope that you will all become part of it. Today billionaire, Michael Bloomberg announced a five hundred million dollar pledge efforts to phase out the nation's remaining coal fired plants and the trend lines are already going the right direction as far as close concerned with coal consumption on a steady decline. But crucially, and this is really important Bloomberg's also making sure that coal power coming off line is not replaced by natural gas, which, of course, is also a fossil fuel and carbon Amidror, albeit cleaner, but would have to be phased out quickly nor to prevent climate catastrophe. The money will also be used to target state and local elections because as Bloomberg rightly says. Baima changes now. First and foremost, a political problem, not a scientific quandary, or even a technological puzzle. Now, let's be clear, the real path, or to post carbon future involves enormous grassroots mobilization and organization, and agitation and political leadership and technological change. It will not be led, primarily by billionaires. But if billionaires are wondering, what's it good use of their money? Well, this is probably about as good a use as you can think more, please. Presidential primary process is to my mind really two different processes at the same time. I it's a competition to select the candidate, the person that's going to be the nominee to represent the party, but also crucially. It's the way a party sets its Genda its policy priorities. The weight finds consensus view of the entire coalition about what it stands for and what it fights for. And you're already seeing that part of the process at work in the democratic primary right now well before anyone's casting about particularly on climate candidates across the spectrum of the competitors. In the primary are competing with various plans to tackle the climate emergency all of which are in the constant context of recent history really rather ambitious. You're also seeing this primary process play out on reproductive rights after several candidates, including Elizabeth Warren at our own townhall, criticized Joe Biden for his support of the federal ban on spending for abortion services. He moved towards the consensus view and reversed his position. We now see so many Republican governors denied health care to millions of the most poorest and most vulnerable Americans by refused. Even Medicaid expansion. I can't justify leaving millions of women without access to the care, they need and the ability to, to exercise their constitutionally protected right? If I believe Healthcare's. Right as I do I can no longer support an amendment. That makes that right dependent on someone's. Talk about where things stand in both of those democratic primary prophecies, I'm joined by L dry Williams, democratic strategists, Jason Johnson, politics editor for the route in an MSNBC political analyst and Bill share contributing editor to political magazine and a contributor to real clear, politics. Joy, I've seen the sort of people talking about the Biden's reversal here. It's right to me that at some level, it's like this is exactly what you want. Right. In terms of that, that second part of the process, which is finding consensus about, like these are, what this is what the Democratic Party is in the year twenty nine hundred twenty twenty like this is precisely how you want it to work. Yeah, but it also matters in terms of how you deliver your change. We've been through presidential cycles where we've accused candidates a flip flop, and we know how that works. But it also depends on how how you demonstrate to who the electorate is going to be how you have bombed on a position. And what made you change that position? Now he gets on stage and he says that, you know, because of what's happening in the states, where Republican governors are restricted in legislatures are restricting. That's why he's changing his mind but in an atmosphere where the democratic primary electorate is going to be different. They demand. They're demanding more. They want more from the candidates. It's a little difficult to just say that you have to say a little bit more. One response to that. Is it look, there's the question of like who the electorate is right? Like. All right. And you have to be aware of that it's a big group of credit primary electorate is, and who you're playing too, and that's something that the Biden campaign is going to have to address throughout the campaign, right? Although Bill, my sense of the Biden campaigns proposition here, and I don't necessarily think this is a bad, way for them to see this is I'm Joe Biden, and I could be Donald Trump in terms of what the Joe Biden presidency will be, it'll be basically, whatever the consensus ends up producing of this democratic primary, and I won't go without agenda. Well, yes, I think Biden very much wants to be seen as a mainstream democrat. But he's also I think made the calculation that most Democrats actually define themselves as moderates. Yes. Most Democrats say they want politicians who compromise over politicians to stick to their positions. No matter what, and that defiance against the left of the party has served him well up until this, because four she does not like the other issues. I don't wanna follow up on that because I totally agree with you. I mean I think there's like there is a disconnect in terms of the ideological positioning of, of the sort of most intensely active people in this primary this early on and the median voter in the democratic process in terms of how they self describe in terms of those things like compromise and part of the value proposition. Joe Biden is like I can stiff arm those folks, I'm Joe Biden, and I'm gonna hit the center and I know how to win. Why is this issue different? Right. And his argument that he knows how to win works when he goes toe-to-toe with Trump and Trump doesn't hit the Mark with Trump tries to throw a punch of Biden. It doesn't land that serves Biden's argument when Biden zigzags on the height of him as he did these past forty eight hours that makes them look wobbly. So it's less partly, it's the position, it's probably how we handled it when he is defiant and strong that makes people think that guy knows how to deal with the fire is wobbly less. So although I also sort of Nick cover had this last night. And I think it's true, it's like no one's going to beat you up for coming to them. You know what I mean? Like it's like if the if you like if you come to the position, it's like okay, well, welcome, which was, basically what the rest of the field set, which is, you know. The problem with Joe Biden, and this is the whole idea of, of I could stiff arm these people that I've always said this. He has he's always been electable and not viable. Right. The guy can't make it through a private or save his life, but if he ever got general election, he's probably a very likable candidate. He's got to remember that you still have a primary because this is what I saw about the sort of high debt. Okay. Great. You came to this position. Will you be able to make that same transformation about the crime, though? Because that's the one there are several things that Joe Biden has said, I'm not changing my mind and that's going to blow up in his face if he doesn't do something like what he did the crime Bill to me. Which, again, I burned entire book, substantively, I think was very bad piece of legislation, and we should note. There are lots of people at the time without is about he's, I also think there is some divergence and the crime Bill, right? Like if you pull the most like active folks, who are really active in this right now. I don't necessarily think they're feeling about the crime Bill. And whether it's a you know, a no go for them is the same as your median voter in the South Carolina, Nevada primary. You're you're meeting voted is really can't point not asking about. I'm not asking about asking about the rain. Trump and then like why? But the point is that, like, if you're the Biden people, that's the thing, that's friend of mine for that in the problem, which is done, which is not a crazy theory of the case out of crazy theory. But it's like it's like you guys. Here's the danger can act like a front runner. You can't act like we're still gotta remember that you've got a race on because if you started looking arrogant, that's what blows face, but the other issue is better our conversation about who the electorate is. And so if you can't if the Biden campaign is focusing thinking that they're going to do a traditional pre Obama democratic primary process where you're speaking. Yes. To the moderate, the moderate, damn and don't have to really engage with the left don't have to do anything, then you're losing. So that's Bill. This is my point. Right. Like I think their theory of the case is a pretty strong one, I think this idea that they think like let's project out towards the project out both towards Trump and also the sort of big swath of the not on Twitter, part of the democratic primary, which is a pick the majority. Probably right. They have to come up with a strategy to deal with the other parts of the. Policy debate. That's happening. I'm sorry, that to me yesterday. What's the question again? I'm just saying that they have to come up with a strategy to deal with, like, I think it's a decent theory, the case for them to running as the front runner and trying to cover up this relatively center of the coalition position and run against Trump. But they have to have a sort of strategy for how they're dealing with all these policy fights that are going to be happening around them. Well, I think their strategy is they're going gonna have their policy rollout Biden and did a climate policy package of vita has done some economic policy patches before I don't think he's going to try to rock the boat too much either towards the right or the left, they don't want, they don't want to get into a scrap. That's right with the base, if they don't have to. But the same time they don't want to be pushed around by the base to be forced to apologize time and time again, so it's a fine line to walk. And that's why I think in this case with the Hyde amendment by the want to end it as soon as possible. You know, it's funny when you look at there's like scoring DWDM innate. Right of where someone is in the caucus Joe Biden was, basically, smack dab in the center of the democratic caucus, I tire career the US Senate, which chew something gets up with, like understands very well where the middle of democratic consensus politics are. And that's where he aims. But here's the way, the Biden campaign has to remember. Yes. Yes, they could be that Twitter is not real life, but Twitter in the conversations and the fights that happen on social media boil over into the media over to the press. And so if you guy. Guy in that standpoint. And then also that being used against particular pockets, like women like people have Cutler that is also got up. There's also Twenty-one people that are aiming at you now. Right. That's and you've got you've had to have the Democrats and he's running for president L joy Williams. Jason Johnson and Bill share. Thank you so much. Joining us before we go quick, reminder about this week's episode of our podcast. Why is this happening features one of the founding members of the black lives matter movement? At least you Garza really interesting discussion about the movement's origins evolutions and where it stands today. Going listen subscribe, wherever you get your podcast that does it for all in. You can catch us every weeknight at eight o'clock on MSNBC. Don't forget to like us on Facebook. That's Facebook dot com slash all in with Chris. The first presidential debate help that twenty twenty election to night of Wednesday, June twenty-sixth, then Thursday, June twenty-seventh, live from my Addy across three that NBC MSNBC Telemundo.