Summary
A Trump-DOJ-appointed special counsel is seeking to indict a lawyer at a firm with Democratic ties. The Biden Justice Department is suing to try and stop the Texas abortion law.
Transcript
RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, Chris. Thank you, my friend. Much appreciated.
Thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. Really happy to have you here.
We start tonight with breaking news just in the last few minutes. Law enforcement authorities in Washington, D.C., have started putting up a ring of protective fencing around the U.S. Capitol again. This is, you will recall, quite similar to the fencing around the Capitol around the January 6th attack on the Capitol by Trump supporters seeking to overturn the results of the presidential election.
The fencing initially went up very quickly after the attack. It`s ended up staying up until July. That fence was unsettling for a lot of people. It was a profound change in what the CWS government looks like, for one, and what it feels like to be in Washington, D.C. I think it`s fair to say there was relief when the fencing finally came down in July.
But as of right now, as of just this hour, these are live images here, it`s going back up. Nobody expects it will be up for months on end again. But it is going up as of tonight because of a Saturday event, an event planned for this weekend in which Trump supporters are saying they are going to converge on the Capitol led by a former Trump campaign official and their convergence on the capitol this weekend is explicitly organized around them celebrating the January 6th attack and denouncing the arrests and prosecution of the people who participated in it.
So, as of right now, we are watching these images as the fence is moved into place and put back up around the Capitol. If you know the geography of the Capitol, the fenced in area will be between Independence Avenue and Constitution Avenue, and also from First Street in the West and First Street in the East.
The U.S. Capitol Police are saying this new round of fencing will come down, hopefully, very quickly after any threat poised by Saturday`s events has passed. Let`s hope so. We`ll see.
NBC News reports that online discussion among Trump supporters about this weekend`s event suggest a small turnout with lots of extremist pro-Trump groups warning followers if they come to the Capitol this Saturday, they will likely get arrested or put on some sort of FBI watch list. Unfortunately, that`s not stopping messages like this one though, explicitly begging for violence. They are surrounding the discussions around this week`s event. This is found today by NBC`s Ben Collins and Brandy Zadrozny who`ve been reporting on this for NBC.
As "Washington Post" has reported, D.C. residents themselves are being told that no matter the size of the gathering this weekend, they should be on the lookout for people who have brought weapons. These flyers are going up all over downtown D.C. over the last few days. If you see someone with a firearm, immediately call 911.
But again, we`ll keep an eye on this scene tonight as the protective fencing has started going back up the U.S. capitol. This started moments ago. The seat of our pants nation`s government having to dress up like a military installation because of the lingering symptoms of the Trump era in U.S. politics.
Last night, Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom of California defeated a Trump inspired recall effort by just a landslide margin. For some perspective of just how big of a failure this Republican recall effort turned out to be, what a waste of $276 million it turned out to be for the people of California, consider that Governor Newsom was first elected governor in California in 2018. In that 2018 race, he won by a gigantic margin. He won the governorship with 69 percent of the vote.
Last night in the recall, all the votes aren`t in yet, they will be coming in for a few weeks actually, but last night in the recall, the don`t recall Gavin Newsom vote may have been even larger than the vote to elect him in the first place. As of right now, the don`t recall Gavin Newsom vote stands at 63.9 percent, which is two points higher than the vote he got to win the governorship in the first place in 2018.
The Republicans whole rationale tore doing this recall is they didn`t think California was truly a blue state. They thought it was some kind of accident that Gavin Newsom became governor by a 24-point margin three years ago and surely it was an accident that Joe Biden won the presidential race there by almost 30 points last year.
[21:05:04]
Surely, Republicans believed that California had just kind of screwed that up, didn`t really mean it.
California would take back the votes if they just had the chance. Turns out California did not want to take that back. In fact, they feel more emphatically opposed to Republican options than ever. Keep asking, you guys. You will keep finding out.
Part of what the Republicans were banking on, I think, in terms of turning around political sentiment in California was that they were absolutely sure, absolutely sure that Californians really didn`t want all these policies to try to stop the spread of COVID-19, right? Didn`t we agree it`s terrible to have these policies that people have to get vaccinated and you have to wear masks to slow the spread of the virus, right? Y`all with me on these terrible policies?
No. California does not agree with that. Exit poll data from the California vote shows that voters in the recall believed by a very wide margin that Gavin Newsom`s vaccination and mask policies to try to stop COVID-19 were either just about right or they should be even stronger. They weren`t strict enough.
Those two answers together just with dwarfing the number of California voters, the minority of California voters who said they wanted fewer anti- COVID policies in place.
Republican talking points on this are out of keeping with what the American people think on this issue no matter how emphatic the Republicans in conservative media get on this issue, the American public are not with them. Those numbers from California jibe neatly with what we see at the national level, for all the screaming about it, from conservative media figures, public elected officials, almost uniformly the American people broadly favor the kinds of policies pursued by Gavin Newsom in California, the kind of policies President Biden is pursuing to try to get COVID under control.
And there have been a whole raft of polls to this effect recently in the last week or two. But just look today, the new Ipsos/Axios poll that`s out today. Sixty percent of the country says they are in specifically in support of the Biden administration`s new requirements that businesses with over 100 employees need to require either vaccination or regular COVID testing for their employees. That`s 60 percent support nationwide. Even with all of the conservative media and all Republican politicians scream being that for a week now that it`s the end of the world. Country`s in favor of it.
Today, President Biden met with CEOs from some of the biggest companies in the country, some of the country`s largest employers, to talk about implementing those new rules and keeping their big work forces safe.
That comes as new CDC data shows that since the start of the epidemic, the cumulative death toll from COVID has just been staggering. One in every 500 Americans have has been killed by COVID. One in five Americans have died from COVID-19 and counting.
Over the last couple of weeks, we have covered this sad and so unsettling story out of north Idaho. Hospitals in north Idaho, including big ones, regional hubs, have started rationing care, they have started turning people away because of the crush of very sick COVID patients overwhelming the system. And rationing a hospital system is a terrible thing. It literally means that people who otherwise would be admitted to the hospital because of an emergency situation after -- you know, because of an accident, because of the emergence of an acute illness, they are being turned away and told the hospital can`t take them in.
And as said, that is the case right now in North Idaho. This is the front page of the paper in Twin Falls, Idaho, in the southern part of the state. You see that top of the headline there rationed health care imminent. That`s because the state of Idaho now says they are preparing to go to the same crisis standards of care that no room at the inn rationing system in North Idaho, they are preparing to expand to the rest of Idaho too, including the Treasure Valley Region, which is where Boise is.
So, that`s a bad situation that is getting worse in Idaho and other states, including Kentucky and a few other states approaching that. Tonight, we are going to be checking in with a family doctor who is the medical chief of staff at the largest hospital in the state of Alaska.
Anchorage has about 300,000 people. It`s the largest city in Alaska, by far. And, Alaska, of course, is a huge far-flung state with lots of small isolated communities in it. In a state like that, people come to the biggest hospital in the state. They come to Anchorage to the providence Alaska medical center there. They come from all over the state for all he levels of care. Well, that hospital, that key resource for the state of Alaska has gone to the rationing system that North Idaho has been in for the past few days.
[21:10:05]
The doctors in Anchorage have written a heart rending but very practical letter to the people of Alaska today, advising the people of Alaska what that means. The chief of staff from the hospital is going to join us form Anchorage live in just a few minutes tonight.
But on top of all that going on, we actually have some further breaking news tonight from "The New York Times." And I will tell you, bottom line on this for me is that this is a new strange development in a story that was weird from the start when we first started covering if almost five years ago. So this was a story that began just a few days before the 2016 election on Halloween 2016.
That night, journalist Franklin Foer published this. Was a Trump server communicating with Russia? Remember this in 2016? Just is a strange story no one knew quite what to do with at the time or in the years since.
The basic gist of it was that a group of computer scientists and cybersecurity researchers, sort of high end well-respected people to their surprise stumbled on evidence that appeared indicate some kind of extensive, unexplained, ongoing communication between a computer server at a Kremlin-connected Russian bank in Moscow, a bank called Alfa Bank, that was communicating with a server at the Trump Organization, at Donald Trump`s business.
The importance of the story from the beginning was that nobody knew what that meant. Nobody knew what this was. The headline of the story at slate was posed in the form of a question. Was a Trump server communicating with Russia? Was it?
It`s hard to tell, but it did seem like it was something weird. There was something unexplained and odd in the data. As a very basic matter, what the data showed, what the evidence appeared to show was just pings, communicative pings between the servers, the one at the Russian bank in Moscow and the one for the Trump Organization.
Nobody could see the content of the communications or even if there was any content or substantive communication at all. It was just you raw Internet metadata showed these computers pinging each other. And 99.999999 percent of people wouldn`t even know how to read that kind of data.
But experts who do understand that kind of stuff saw it, sort of uncovered it in the wild and thought it was a strange finding. It was unusual. Yes, it might be benign. It might be a glitch. It might be really nothing. But it was weird.
And the upshot of that reporting and the reason those cybersecurity folks showed that data to reporters and walked them through it is because at the time, they thought it was odd and suspicious enough it should be looked at, particularly given all the other concerning stuff that appeared to be going on at the time with Russia trying to interfere in our election, Russian hackers breaking into the Democratic Prty and the Clinton campaign and the rest of it.
And, of course, you know, in the end we learned much more about Russia actually interfering in the election, Russia mounting a huge social media campaign to influence Americans and divide Americans and lead Americans about the election campaign, Russia not only breaking into the Democratic party and its servers in order to steal information from the Clinton campaign and the DNC, but to also then repurpose it and turn it around and weaponize it and try to use it to greatest effect to help Donald Trump try to get elected president.
We would learn lots more about that in years to come. Not to mention all that we learned about the Trump campaign`s apparent willingness to engage covertly with the Russian government while the Russian government was engaged in activities like that on their behalf. We still never had a proper explanation as to why Trump`s campaign chairman at the time fed private nonpublic proprietary public data in the middle of the campaign to a Russian intelligence offer. They concluded it was involved in the efforts by Russia to influence the election on Trump`s behalf.
All of that came out in the following years. At time, just before the 2016 election on Halloween 2016, this thing about these weird communications between Trump organization servers and the Russian bank servers, it was basically a note of intrigue and it was never conclusively determined to be anything. It remained a sidebar point of interest, an unexplained thing in the Russia investigation that never got resolved.
When Robert Mueller, the special counsel, wrote his report, he ignored the Alfa Bank matter entirely. The Senate Intelligence Committee, when they wrote their determinative report, they said those contacts between the Trump Organization and the Alfa Bank, at least the contacts between their servers, they said they were unusual contacts, but they said their investigators could never positively conclude what those contacts might have been.
[21:15:03]
The closest the whole thing ever came to any sort of apparent resolution was in this hotly on contested story in the "New York Times" came out at the same time the "Slate" story did. "The Times" reported that the FBI had looked into this matter. It`s spent several weeks looking into the matter and ultimately concluded there could be innocuous explanation for the contacts. But that was basically that. That was basically how it resolved.
Alfa Bank and its Kremlin-connected executives have always vociferously denied the allegations that they had anything to do with the Trump campaign or any kind of election interference. In fact, Alfa Bank claimed into a pair of lawsuits that the allegations or the intimations in this reporting were all some sort of giant frame-up. They claimed basically that these computer scientists, these computer researchers fabricated these server communication records in order to smear their company and smear the Trump campaign.
Here`s where we get to tonight`s breaking news because that quite baroque theory that the unexplained server look-ups between this bank and the Trump Organization, you know, they are not evidence of communication between Alfa Bank and the Trump Organization and they`re not innocuous electronic pings that mean nothing which people were suspicious about for no reason, this baroque theory that the evidence of communication between the servers was invented, was forged, it was fabricated, it was the product of a conspiracy orchestrated by the Clinton campaign and the Democrats and the deep state to frame Donald Trump by inventing out of whole cloth a super hard to understand, totally unclear random server ping technical conspiracy that no one understands, I mean, it sounds outlandish, it sounds pointless to you and me, right? If you are going to frame somebody, this isn`t how you would do it. You would make it so it was something people could understand. Not this confusing bit of metadata that nobody could interpret.
That`s been Alfa Bank`s theory, though, is that this has been pursuing that in the courts. The Trump Justice Department appears to have sort of run with that. And we are just now tonight starting to see the results of that, even though it`s eight month since the Trump administration left office.
This is John Durham. He was a U.S. attorney in the state of Connecticut. A month after the Mueller report was released back in 2019, Trump Attorney General Bill Barr gave John Durham a new task. He told him to go out and examine where the Trump-Russia investigation came from in the first place. This was something Trump had been demanding for a long time.
Essentially, there is no Russia investigation, anybody who says the Russia thing out to be investigated. They should be investigated. Them investigating us and Russia, that itself is the crime. So Barr gave Durham this remit. Dig up some investigation which culminated in the Mueller report was actually bogus, cooked up by false pretenses by the anti-Trump deep staters or the Clinton campaign or Ukraine, whatever you can find to support Trump he is insistence that the whole thing was a hoax, that the whole thing was in fact a crime against him.
And you might not be aware of this. You may not have heard John Durham`s name if you don`t regularly consume right-wing media, but for the last two years of the Trump administration, hosts on the Fox News Channel and right wing blogs and Republican lawmakers have been constantly heralding what the Durham investigation was going to reveal. All of the people who were going to go to jail for investigating Trump and Russia, for, in their words, you know, ginning up this false investigation. John Durham was going to blow the Russia hoax wide open, lock her up, lock her up.
President Trump frequently tweet about John Durham and the Durham investigation apparently furious that Durham hadn`t put out a report before the 2020 election, something Attorney General Bill Barr reportedly pressured John Durham to do.
Since out of office, Donald Trump has continued to rail about John Durham. Where is Durham`s damning report? Where are the indictments? Why are my enemies not all in handcuffs?
For years now, the Durham investigation has been the holy grail for Trump and his supporters the thing that will expose the Russia investigation as some crime against Trump that itself must be avenged.
And one of the angles Durham has been working on is the theory which was originally advanced by this Kremlin-connected Russian bank, Alfa Bank, this theory that Alfa Bank and the Trump Organization were framed by computer scientists who supposedly found communications between the servers, computer scientists who discussed those communications and passed it on to the press and passed it on to the FBI for investigation.
Dexter Filkins at "The New Yorker" reporting almost a year ago that Durham was actually hauling in the computer scientist that has raised these concerns about Alfa Bank and putting them before a grand jury.
Well, here is what has broken tonight in "The New York Times." quote, John Durham, special counsel appointed by the Trump administration to scrutinize the Russia investigation has told the Justice Department he will ask a grand jury to indict a prominent cyber lawyer on a charge of making a false statement to the FBI. Any indictment of the lawyer, Michael Sussman, a former federal prosecutor now, excuse me, now a partner the Perkins Coie law firm who represented the DNC on issues related to Russia`s 2016 hacking of the servers, any indictment of Sussman is likely to attract significant political attention.
The case against Sussman centers on the question who his client was when he conveyed certain suspicions about Trump and Russia to the FBI in September 2016. Among other things, investigators have examined that Mr. Sussman was secretly working for the Clinton campaign, which he denies. Sussman lawyers telling "The Times," quote, Mr. Sussman has committed no crime. Any prosecution here would be baseless, unprecedented and unwarranted deviation from the apolitical and principled way in which the Department of Justice is supposed to do its work.
A spokesman for Attorney General Merrick Garland who has the authority to rule over Mr. Durham is said to have declined to did not comment, nor did the spokesman for Mr. Durham himself. The accusation against Sussman focuses on the meeting Sussman had on September 19, 2016, with the FBI`s top lawyer at the time, James Baker.
At the meeting, Sussman relayed data and analysis from cyber security researchers, who thought that hot internet data might be evidence of a covert communications channel between computer service associated with the Trump Organization and those are associated with Alfa Bank, a Kremlin- linked Russian financial institution.
Sussman`s lawyers told the DOJ that he sought that meeting because he in the cybersecurity researchers believe "The New York Times" was going to publish the data and wanted to give the FBI a heads up. Durham did find an inconsistency, as pertains to Mr. Sussman.
James Baker, the former FBI lawyer, has said to have told investigators that he recalled Sussman telling him that he was not meeting him to convey this information on behalf of any clients. But in a deposition before Congress in 2017, Sussman testified that he did seek that FBI meeting on behalf of a client, and unnamed client who was a cybersecurity expert who had helped analyze the data.
So, like I said, this is a weird development in this story that is been weird from the beginning. According to what "The New York Times" is reporting tonight, what John Durham, this Trump appointed, Bill Barr appointed special counsel, what he is preparing to do, is charge this cybersecurity lawyer, Michael Sussman, with having told someone at the FBI that he was not representing a client, when in fact he was representing a client, he conveyed this information, this is suspicious information, to the FBI, hey this is national security concerns hey this is about to be in the press. The FBI ought to look into this, here`s the data that we think is basically what "The New York Times" says that reporters are about to put out of the public, this has national security implications, here FBI, you should have it.
And, the basis for the prosecution, at least that`s reported by "The New York Times", is that when Sussman did that, he told them I`m handing it over on half not on behalf of a client, he says he was doing it on behalf of his cybersecurity client who had dug up the suspicions date in the first place, but the suspicion here, by John Durham and company, is that actually, suspend was secretly representing the Hillary Clinton campaign when he handed on this information to the FBI.
There`s reportedly some evidence that Sussman build some of his work to the Clinton campaign as some, point again his large firm was representing the Clinton campaign`s time, his lawyer say there`s an explanation for that. In any case, here`s was seems to be the key point about this investigation. Quote, some of the questions that Durham`s team asked in recent, months including witnesses that were subpoenaed against the grand jury, suggest he`s been pursuing a theory that the Clinton campaign use their law firm to submit dubious information to the FBI, about Russia and Trump in an effort to get investigative activity to hurt the 2016 campaign. Quote, there`s been no public sign that he`s found any evidence of that theory.
So, what that apparently leaves Durham with, is a lawyer, who gave the FBI some information, he thought they should have.
[21:25:04]
The FBI chased that down and decided and probably nothing, and maybe that lawyer fully revealed who is representing at that time. Does it matter who is representing at the time?
As for why this case is being brought now, well, look at the clock. The meeting in question here, happened on September 19th 2016. What`s today`s date? September 15th, 2021.
Because of a five-year statute of limitations for such cases, Mr. Durham has a deadline of this weekend to bring a charge over activity from that day. Literally the statue of limitations, expires on Sunday, here it is Wednesday, and he`s rushing to get this done before the statue of limitations expires. This indictment is apparently not been filed yet. We do not have all the facts, yet whether this lawyer told the FBI untrue, about who his client with, whether it matters who his claim was when he gave the information for them to look into. That is something that may end up being hashed out in court.
But the big picture here, the substance and suspicion around the Alfa Bank stuff, is this might be evidence of some means of convert communication between a U.S. presidential campaign in a foreign entity that was trying to influence our election. If you came across that, if you had some cybersecurity expert guy who was your client and he brought you that data, whether you are working for Hillary Clinton or you are working for Donald Trump or you are working for Donald Duck, if you are a computer scientist or experience cybersecurity lawyer, who had the cybersecurity chops to know what this meant, but the worst-case scenario about what this would really mean in terms of our national security as a country, the responsible thing to do in that instance, is to take it to the FBI. Hopefully anyone of us who came across data like this and didn`t know what it meant but worried it could be something serious would take it to the FBI.
That`s what they tell you they do. If you see something, say something, right? Bring to the FBI so the FBI can chase it. Down even if it proves to be nothing. That seems like the right thing to do an understandable thing to do in this circumstance, right? Special counsel appointed by Bill Barr, left in place during the Biden administration, apparently left room to room by Attorney General Merrick Garland is now trying to criminalize that acts see something say something, well, if you said something about Donald Trump, we`ll try to put in jail.
Joining us now is Barbara McQuade. She is former U.S. attorney.
Barb it`s great to see you. Thanks for being here.
BARBARA MCQUADE, MSNBC LEGAL CONTRIBUTOR: You bet, Rachel. Great to be with you.
MADDOW: So, we did start covering this five years ago. And never came to anything in terms of the substance of this. Nobody ever seems to have figured out whether there is anything going on between Alfa Bank and the Trump Organization. Because of that, the story sort of lingered and all of its loosens of just sort of been freighted out there in the window this time.
That said, regardless of the underlying suspicions that gave rise to this is a story in the first place, what is your opinion on the strength of the legal case here? The prospect of this lawyer being indicted for having brought this stuff to the FBI?
MCQUADE: Well, I guess I would withhold judgment until I actually see with the case says, and with the facts are that it is based on. We have some reporting, I guess I don`t know if we know the whole story.
But based on the reporting that I hear, I don`t hear any evidence of the essential evidence of materiality. That is -- you know, not every false statement is a crime, only the important ones. You know, if you lie about some irrelevant detail, that doesn`t matter. So I don`t know there`s evidence that he`s lying at all.
But even if he is about whether he was there on behalf of no clients or he was there on behalf of a cyber expert, it really does not matter. You know, when you have information about a crime the FBI takes it in and assesses it based on its value, sometimes it seems like it is not worthy of further investigation, people call the FBI all day every day to say little green Martians are interfering with my thoughts. They don`t investigate those.
But other cases they can take seriously they do investigate and they do vet the fact that you`re representing a client are not representing a client, I don`t think his material to this. I think it`s especially rich in light of the fact that these investigators at the DOJ that are looking into the Russia, in the Michael Flynn case dismissed that case because they found his statements were not material. Remember he lied to the FBI about what he said to the Russian ambassador during the transition time. If those are not material, it`s really difficult to see how this omission or false statement is in any way material here.
[21:30:04]
MADDOW: Barb, it also strikes me, again looking at this is a non lawyer, that the statue of limitations is the end of the week. It`s five-year statute of limitations on this. It appears to expire this weekend.
Should we read into that at all? Does that suggest anything about the strength or merits of the case, given that Mr. Durham really does appear to be against the clock? And the fact that the details of this indictment that they are seeking appeared to have been spelled out and a lot of detail to the press?
MCQUADE: Yeah, I don`t know. You know, you get that fifth year because you get the fifth year. So, that time is part of it, it maybe they wanted to make sure that they taken every step. It may be that Merrick Garland requested a detailed review of this all the way up the chain. And that is what is taking so long.
But it does tend to suggest that they worked very, very hard and that this is all they have, which doesn`t sound like much. Now, again, I do want to reserve judgment until we see all the facts because it could be that so often happens at the first charge is not the last charge, that this is the first charge and it`s an effort to tame leverage over someone to attempt to obtain their cooperation to see if there`s more information that you can charge.
But the statue of limitations is going to be butting up any other charges they might decide to file as well.
I also think that this whole theory that the origins of the Russian investigation were some political propaganda or something, that is already been dispelled. In 2019, we had the Department of Justice Inspector General issued a report that said it was probably predicated, John Durham himself although he gave in his leading public statement at the time that they disagreed with the conclusions when he was pressed on that, when he said was, I think it`s properly opened as a preliminary investigation and I would not his opened it is a full investigation, which is a really bureaucratic difference.
And so, the fact that it was probably predicated on the stolen emails that George Papadopoulos bragged about to a diplomat, it`s really hard to see how any of this is material even if there is a technical omission or lie here it also causes me to wonder why Merrick Garland is allowing this to happen. He is the ability to pull the plug on this but again maybe there`s more facts we don`t know but I worry that he is so concerned about appearing to be independent and nonpartisan that he is bending over backwards to a fault.
MADDOW: Barbara McQuade, former U.S. attorney, somebody who has never ever been hyperbolic in all of the conversation I`ve had with you and I know that`s a serious thing, thanks for being here. Thanks for your clarity, Barb.
MCQUADE: Thanks, Rachel.
MADDOW: All right. We`ve got much more ahead tonight. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:36:53]
MADDOW: This is from the emergency motion. Quote, one patient got in her car at midnight in Texas so she can drive through the night and make it to Oklahoma in the morning for her abortion appointment. And she had to turn around the same day to travel back to Texas. In one day, another patient drove 1,000-mile round-trip alone because she didn`t have paid time off work and couldn`t afford to miss her shift.
Another patient facing violence at the hands of her husband it`s discreetly attempting to leave Texas without her husband finding out, and is desperate and selling personal items to scrape together the funds needed for an out of state abortion.
It`s been exactly 14 days now since the law essentially banning all abortions in the state of Texas has gone into effect. Last week the U.S. Justice Department sued Texas arguing that in federal court that the Texas ban is a violation of the constitutional right to get an abortion no matter which of the 50 states to live in.
Well, that filing, filing that lawsuit may be in the end could result in a judge knocking down the abortion ban. The initial filing of the lawsuit by DOJ a week ago, does nothing in the short term, to try and put the Texas law on pause, to try and stop it while it gets litigated in court.
Well, now, that changed. An emergency motion that was filed shortly before midnight, last night, the Justice Department has now asked the judge in this case to temporarily block the enforcement of Texas is abortion ban, not later at the end of the day, or when this lawsuit ultimately gets resolved, but now, while the challenge is to later pending.
And the DOJ`s filing is filled with the stories about women who had to drive for hours, and sell their stuff to try and get an abortion out of state, now that it`s illegal to get one in the state where they live. The judge tonight did schedule a hearing to decide whether he`s going to act of this emergency motion, to stop the Texas ban, to let women in Texas get abortions. Again he scheduled a hearing on this emergency notion for two and a half weeks from now, October 1st. No rush for that either.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:43:01]
MADDOW: Shortly before midnight last night, the Justice Department asked a federal judge to temporarily blocked the enforcement of Texas`s new law that essentially bans all abortions in the state. The judge tonight has just said that he will get around to deciding whether or not to grant that emergency motion, two and a half weeks from now. That`s one hell decide whether or not to act on an emergency basis.
In the meantime, the Constitution remains suspended for Texas women.
Joining us now is Nancy Northup. She`s president and CEO of the Center of Reproductive Rights, which has been fighting hand over fight against the Texas ban, to up to the U.S. of Supreme Court.
Ms. Northup, it`s nice to see you. Thanks for being here tonight
NANCY NORTHUP, PRESIDENT AND CEO, CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS: Thank you, and thank you so much Rachel, for beginning with those stories from the preliminary junction motion, because it really shows what`s been happening on the ground in the last two weeks since the law has been in effect
MADDOW: What do you think of the strength of the case against the justice from the Texas ban? And what do you make of the request for this junction against enforcing the ban? It seems like the judge is obviously going to considerate, but on nobody`s ideas of a quick timeline.
NORTHUP: Well, it`s a very strong case that the Department of Justice has. It directly sued Texas for violating the constitutional rights of Texans. This is a clear violation of the constitution. You cannot band abortion six weeks, we have, the Department of Justice papers make clear, 48 years of unbroken president about the right for people to make the decision for themselves.
So, it is a strong case. And they filed their motion for preliminary junction yesterday. Full of what`s actually happened on the ground. I mean, when all of us to Texas, back earlier this year, it was before the law went into effect. And we said these were going to be the effects that are going to happen. But now the Department of Justice has the actual testimonies about what has happened in these two weeks. And they are just heartbreaking stories.
[21:45:02]
It is disappointing, that the judge is not going to hear this until the 1st of October. Because as you pointed, out that is going to be a whole month that Texas has been deprived of their constitutional rights. And it is just. The harm on the ground is real, and severe.
MADDOW: Nancy I`m interested both legally, and practically, what we are learning, and not just reporting on, it and talking with people on the field, about how the material affects here are obviously happening to Texas women who are seeking abortion and can`t get it, because it`s effectively outlawed in the state. But also abortion providers, in not just neighboring states that immediately about Texas, but one in two years above that, where there`s this ripple effect happening, starting with Texas in the middle of the country, moving out to lots of other states, where abortion clinics are filling up, where people are going further and further to get access to care. That is affecting people`s ability to access care in neighboring states.
It does seem like it`s having a knock on immediate effect of significant consequence, that will potentially bring other people into these sorts of cases as plaintiffs.
NORTHUP: Well, yes, what is clear in the papers that will follow in the Department of Justice, the head of Whole Woman`s Health, Amy Hagstrom Miller, talked about talking to her colleagues in Michigan, in New York. These are long distances, they`re seeing patients from Texas. A testimony from the clinic in Oklahoma, that they now have delays, of up to three weeks, which is not the ordinary keys, because they`re making rooms for the Texans are coming in.
So the rights of people in other states, are being violated, access in other states are getting harder because of this deprivation of rights in Texas.
But I want to know, there is a really good development, which is next, week the House of Representative is going to vote on the Women`s Health of Protection Act. And this is legislation that would address what`s happening in Texas, what`s happening in the Mississippi case going to the Supreme Court. This is a huge and enormous step to have this vote in the house next week.
MADDOW: Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center of Reproductive Rights, Nancy, thanks for being here, I appreciate it.
NORTHUP: Thank you.
MADDOW: All right. We`ve got more ahead tonight. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:51:18]
MADDOW: Providence, Alaska Medical Center is the largest hospital in Alaska. This is a letter that was just released to the people of Alaska from the medical staff at Providence, Alaska, medical center. We`re writing to you as the medical executive committee at Providence, Alaska Medical Center. We`re an apolitical body of physicians that represents the independent medical staff at Providence. Each of us is a member of the Alaskan community. We live, work and play here. Our children attend school here.
At this time, we feel we have an ethical obligation to be transparent and share with the public the stressing reality of what is happening inside the walls of the hospital. Our caregivers are doing their best as they have been for the past 18 months, but while we`re doing our utmost, we`re unable to provide the standard of care to each and every patient who needs our help.
The acuity a number of patients exceeds our resources and our ability to staff beds with skilled caregivers. Like nurses and respiratory therapist. We`ve been forced within her hospital to implement crisis standards of care. What does this mean? In short we`re faced with the situation in which we must prioritize scarce resources and treatments for those patients who have the potential to benefit most, we have developed policies and procedures to ration care, including dialysis and specialized ventilatory support.
People from all around Alaska depend on Providence to provide medical care, for people statewide. Unfortunately, we are unable to continue to meet this need. We no longer had the staff, the space or the beds, to do this scarcity were unable to provide lifesaving care to everyone who needs.
Our emergency room is overflowing. Patients weigh in their cars for hours to see a physician for emergency care. On a daily basis, our transfer center is unable to accept patients who sit in emergency rooms, and hospitals across the state, people who need, their current facility is unable to provide.
If you or your loved one needs specially care at Providence, such as a cardiologist, a trauma surgeon, or neurosurgeon, there are no more staff beds left.
The letter goes on to encourage, basically beg Alaskans to wear a mask and if you`re exposed to get tested and stay home and get vaccinated and, quote, lastly, avoid potentially dangerous activities and situations that may increase your risk for needing emergency services or hospital care. Unfortunately, if you`re seriously injured it`s possible there won`t be a bed available in our drama center to save your life.
It`s signed by Dr. Kristen Solana-Walkinshaw, who is the chief of staff on the medical executive committee at Providence, Alaska Medical Center, again, the largest hospital in Alaska.
Joining us is Dr. Solana-Walkinshaw.
Thank you so much for taking the time to be with us tonight. Thanks for letting us feature this scary situation happening at your hospital. I imagine this is a traumatic time.
DR. KRISTEN SOLANA-WALKINSHAW, PROVIDENCE, ALASKA MEDICAL CENTER: It`s quite traumatic.
I feel like we, it`s I`m very grateful to be here, to be able to share this message more broadly. We are really struggling in our hospital. And our physicians felt the need to reach out, and really implore the community to do their part, and get vaccinated, and take really good care of themselves, so we can continue to take care of patients.
MADDOW: When I describe Providence, Alaska Medical Center, as the largest hospital in the state, and as a key resources for the state, can you explain more about what that means?
Obviously, Alaska is unique in terms of its geography and its spread. Is Providence the kind of hospital that people come to from all over the state? Not only because of they might live somewhere where there`s not a major hospital, but even if they live somewhere where there`s a hospital, may not have the resources that Providence has?
SOLANA-WALKINSHAW: Exactly, so we are the largest hospital in the state. We accept transfers from small communities, and our critical asks as hospitals that are out in a little bit larger communities like Dillingham, Nome.
[21:55:09]
Patients who gets sick out there, and have a cardiology need, if they need a cardiology cauterization, or CABG, any of those surgeries, if they have a stroke in need specialized neurological care, with our neurologic interventionalists, those people are waiting, in their communities, and are being held in ERs where they are living, in order to wait for a bed to come into Providence.
MADDOW: And once people get to Providence, it just took me aback to read the description reported in "The New York Times" today, described in your letter, of people being told to weigh in their cars, even when they come for emergency care at Providence. If they can physically get to Providence, to your center, and they need to get in the emergency room, people are sometimes waiting in their cars for hours, even before they can be seen in the ER.
That just seems untenable, it seems so unlike what you might must be used to providing in terms of modern medicine.
SOLANA-WALKINSHAW: Exactly. None of us signed up and thought that we would be practicing in these conditions. And we do have an incredible staff, our ER physicians are working as hard as we can our nurses are doing everything we can. Yesterday, we had ten patients in beds in the ER that we`re awaiting a mission. Three of them were ICU level care, and we didn`t have an ICU bed.
We did not have beds for those patients. Meanwhile well there, the other patients are waiting in the waiting room in their cars to be seen.
MADDOW: In their cars. It`s just remarkable.
Dr. Kristen Solana-Walkinshaw, the chief of staff of Providence, Alaska Medical Center, such a difficult time. Thank you for helping us understand tonight. Please keep us apprise. We`d love to have you back. Particularly if there is response from people of Alaska and things start to turnaround, we`d love to be able to spread the word and talk about. Thank. You
SOLANA-WALKINSHAW: Thank you.
MADDOW: All right. We`ll be right back. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MADDOW: All right. That is going to do it for us tonight. We`ll see you tomorrow and what`s tomorrow? Tomorrow is Friday eve. That`s right.
Now it`s time for "THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL".
Good evening, Lawrence.