Mediaboss Marketing

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Peter Navarro is the picture of a law-abiding American citizen. He's a 72-year-old retired business school professor. He's got a Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University. His most recent job was extremely white collar. He served as the White House trade adviser in the last presidential administration, famous for his tough stance on China.

He's never been charged with a crime. He's never trafficked fentanyl, for example, from Mexico. In fact, his hobby is yoga and riding his bicycle. In short, Peter Navarro does not seem like a criminal, much less a danger to this nation. And yet last Friday, federal agents arrested Peter Navarro at Reagan National Airport in Washington. They did not call his lawyer, as is customary in cases like this. They didn't even come to his house, which, as it happens, is just feet from the FBI building, and they could have walked, but they didn't.

Instead, they took down Peter Navarro in public, as you would a fugitive terror mastermind so everyone could see it and learn the lesson they were sending. They handcuffed Peter Navarro. They put him in leg irons, and then they threw him in a cell. He's now facing years in prison. So, what did Peter Navarro do to deserve treatment like this? Well, he resisted a subpoena from the January 6 committee. The January 6 committee is Washington's latest partisan inquisition. It's run by Nancy Pelosi with help from obedient little quislings like Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger.

Navarro resisted that subpoena because he had nothing to do with January 6, nothing whatsoever. That's not disputed. Peter Navarro did not break into the Capitol. He didn't encourage anyone else to break into the Capitol. He wasn't even there that day. He had no idea it was going to happen. Again, that's beyond dispute and Nancy Pelosi and Liz Cheney know that.

DOJ INDICTS FORMER TRUMP ADVISER PETER NAVARRO FOR CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS

White House trade adviser Peter Navarro holds his notes after a television interview at the White House, Monday, Oct. 12, 2020, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File)

If you really wanted to figure out what happened on January 6, Peter Navarro would be the last person you would talk to. Instead, you'd be talking to Ray Eppsand various FBI informants. But finding out what happened on January 6 and why is not the point of the exercise. The point of the exercise is preventing Donald Trump from running for president again. So, in the service of that goal, Pelosi and Liz Cheney demanded that Peter Navarro surrender records of his private conversations with his former boss, President Donald Trump, and when he refused to do that, Congress voted to hold him in contempt in a partisan vote and then Merrick Garland's Justice Department filed criminal charges against Peter Navarro.

This is not the way civilized countries operate. Just because you control the White House and both houses of Congress, does not mean you get to throw your political opponents behind bars. That's not what we do in America. That's what they do in Haiti, but that's what we're doing now and Peter Navarro was not the first. Biden's Justice Department also arrested former Trump adviser Steve Bannon for a similar fake crime. Steve Bannon is awaiting trial this summer.

So, this is not something we've seen before. It's a huge step toward the politics of the Third World, but the media whose job you thought of was to push back against power are not. They are, in fact, applauding because it turns out no punishment is too severe for those who disagree with the national news media. Watch them gloat.

FORMER ABC NEWS PRESIDENT HELPING JAN. 6 COMMITTEE WITH PRODUCTION OF PRIMETIME HEARING

MSNBC'S JONATHAN CAPEHART: What happened to Peter Navarro is what should have happened to Peter Navarro. He was indicted and when you're indicted, you're arrested.

CNN'S ERROL LOUIS:What Peter Navarro did was so far out of bounds and so indefensible.

MSNBC PAUL BUTLER: This prosecution is really about punishing Navarro based on his blatant disrespect for the congressional subpoena.

So, they really are your enemies. They're not covering the news. They're plotting ways to hurt you. That's true. "Congressional subpoenas are not optional," they lecture you, "Comply with them or go to jail." That's the message the lawyers on television are sending. So, let's pretend for a moment that that was true, though it's in fact, not true. If there was, in fact, a law like that for that law to be legitimate, it would have to be like all laws applied equally across the board and no less than the attorney general himself has said that again and again and again.

SENATORS CORNYN, MURPHY, SINEMA, TILLIS TO MEET AS GUN REFORM TALKS AND MASS SHOOTINGS CONTINUE

"I came to work here," he said, "because we're committed to the rule of law and to seeking equal justice under the law." That was Merrick Garland in January. "We conduct every investigation guided by the same norms."

Now, those are the norms under which this country has lived for 250 years. It's not justice unless it's applied equally to all adult American citizens, period. Anything less than that is, by definition, not justice, but we're getting much less than that and it's very obvious.

Here's just one example. Ten years ago this month, Congress voted overwhelmingly on a bipartisan vote, by the way, 17 Democrats to hold Eric Holder, then the attorney general, in criminal contempt of Congress. Holder had refused to turn over documents showing how the Obama administration had armed the Mexican drug cartels. Do you remember that? One of the firearms they sent to Mexico under the so-called "Fast and Furious" program was then used to murder a U.S. Border Patrol officer. It was a scandal at the time, in case you don't recall. Watch.

WILLIAM LA JEUNESSE: Border Patrol agent Brian Terry died in December 2010, killed by guns tied to an Obama administration plan that armed Mexicans, a scandal officials tried to hide by wrongly claiming executive privilege. Emails contained in the House Oversight Committee's report show top officials knew the ATF sent guns to Mexico even before Terry's death. Even the Border Patrol, which sent Terry's team into the desert, didn't know about the operation.

MSNBC GUEST: WHITE MEN ARE THE BIGGEST THREAT TO WOMENS LIBERTY AS CITIZENS, RIGHT TO VOTE

So, that was a legitimate scandal that implicated the entire U.S. government, people who actually have power, not the retirees sitting in jail because of what they did on January 6, but people with actual power, and Eric Holder was the very center of it, but Holder refused to comply with a subpoena from the Congress. Did the FBI arrest Eric Holder for that, please? It was never even seriously considered.

Holder asserted executive privilege, the right to have conversations with the executive, the president that are private. He cited the long-standing policy of respecting executive privilege and he got away with it. So, a week ago, Peter Navarro made this exact point. He sued the Justice Department, pushing back against the subpoena, four days before he was arrested and in that suit, Navarro cited policy written by the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel. That policy reads this way, "Since the 1970s, this office has consistently advised that the president and his immediate advisers are absolutely immune from testimonial compulsion by congressional committee on matters related to their official duties."

In other words, if somebody asserts executive privilege, at the very least, Congress doesn't get to arrest them. Before anyone is arrested, they have to go to a judge to rule on whether or not executive privilege is valid in this case and that's exactly what happened in Eric Holder's case. And by the way, the federal judge rejected Eric Holder's executive privilege claim and still, he was not arrested. Why? You know why ecause he's a leading Democrat. But in Peter Navarro's case, Merrick Garland's DOJ did not even bother to ask a judge. They just arrested Peter Navarro at National Airport.

US CAPITOL POLICE OFFICER INDICTED ON FEDERAL CHARGES, ACCUSED OF UNAUTHORIZED HIGH-SPEED CHASE

So, what we're seeing here isn't really about Peter Navarro or Steve Bannon. What we're seeing is a massive escalation in the use by the Democratic Party of our justice system for partisan revenge. That's exactly what that was. Peter Navarro wouldn't shut up, so they threw him in handcuffs and in fact, at the same moment Peter Navarro was thrown in jail for asserting executive privilege, a Clinton lawyer called Michael Sussman was acquitted by a jury seated by an Obama-appointed judge. Three of the jurors in that case gave money to Hillary Clinton's campaign and not surprisingly, those same jurors declined to punish Michael Sussmann for lying to the FBI to advance the Russia collusion myth that helped Hillary Clinton's campaign. Following all of this?

How did those jurors get on the jury? How did they stay there?

Now, the FBI pretended to be outraged by the fact that Michael Sussman had lied to them, but then we learned actually the FBI was working with Michael Sussman and his law firm, Perkins Coie. Perkins Coie had an FBI workspace in its offices in Washington for a decade and Michael Sussman was so close to the FBI, he had a key card to FBI headquarters.

We know this from a recently released text exchange. We're quoting. "Do you have a badge or do you need help getting into the building?" the FBI's general counsel, James Baker asked Sussmann.

We're quoting now, "I have a badge," Sussmann replied. Sussmann had a badge to the FBI building? How do we get one of those? Oh, we're not leading Democratic lawyers, so we can't have them. Michael Sussmann knew he'd never be punished. Take three steps back. What's going on here? In a fantastic piece at The Federalist, Ben Weingarten explained how we should understand these two prosecutions, "They send an unmistakable message: We can get you any time, anywhere, on any grounds we choose. You can't touch even a single one of ours."

REPORTER'S NOTEBOOK: WILL PUSH FOR GUN CONTROL BE DIFFERENT THIS TIME?

That's it right there. This is a partisan play by a political party that has somehow completely taken over our largest law enforcement agency and ... Michael Sussman is not even the biggest example of this. Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page, Peter Strzok all of them lied to the feds as well. That's a crime. None of them were ever hauled off in leg irons. In fact, they're now at CNN, MSNBC and Georgetown, respectively. They were rewarded with better jobs for what they did... they always are.

Jim Clapper and John Brennan committed perjury on television before Congress. There's no dispute about that. What do they do? Oh, they're on TV now, too. Hunter Biden lied on a federal gun form. That's a felony. How was he punished? Oh, a mild probing on CBS that he just shrugged off as if it were nothing. Watch.

ANTHONY MASON: Why did you have a gun?

HUNTER BIDEN: Well, I did. Again, you know, the period in my life that was difficult. It was, but, you know, I, I don't know.

MASON: According to the reporting, at one point, the Secret Service went looking for the record of sale. Do you know anything about that?

HUNTER: Nothing. No.

MASON: But you know about the Secret Service being involved.

HUNTER: No, I had no idea. I don't know whether the Secret Service were or why they would be or I don't think that that's true.

IMMIGRATION REFORM COULD PREVENT FOOD PRICES FROM HARMING CONSUMERS

Hunter Biden, left, arrives in the Crypt of the US Capitol for President-elect Joe Biden's inauguration ceremony on Wednesday, Jan. 20, 2021 in Washington. (Jim Lo Scalzo/Pool Photo via AP)

"I don't know why the Secret Service are involved." Really? You had no idea because they were with you. They helped you. You committed a gun felony. It's all out there, but Hunter Biden is the president's son and more importantly, he's a faithful party loyalist. So, you know as well as he does, he doesn't have a thing to worry about. In fact, he can flaunt his crimes. RadarOnline.com just got pictures of Hunter Biden casually waving his illegal firearm around as he cavorted with a prostitute several years ago.

The pictures show Hunter Biden's finger on the trigger of the gun, as well as crack cocaine and drug paraphernalia. Hmm, a weapon of war in the hands of a drug addict. Is theJustice Department bothered by this? No, of course not.

You know what bothers the Justice Department quite a bit? Defying the Democratic Party. Do that and your house gets raided by a SWAT team that tips off CNN before it happens. Roger Stone discovered that the hard way.

JON BERMAN: Exclusive footage you're looking at right now from CNN as the FBI arrives at Roger Stone's residence in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, taking him into custody. They arrived before dawn there, before 6 a.m. or just after 6 a.m a dozen officers we're told.

FBI AGENT: FBI, open the door.

So that's the actual norm. If you were Tony Podesta and you work for the Democratic Party, you're totally fine. Nothing you do is going to get you in trouble, and you know it. If you're Roger Stone, you've done nothing wrong at all, but you've given the finger to the Democratic Party, they show up at your house with guns. That's the norm the attorney general is upholding. Serve the Democratic Party, and you'll be rewarded even if you're a felon.

At almost exactly the moment the DOJ was putting Peter Navarro in shackles, the DOJ was also dropping the most serious charges against the two left-wing lawyers who tried to incinerate cops, burn them to death in their patrol cars during the BLM riots.

TIM RYAN PUSHES TAX CUT TO HELP MIDDLE CLASS WEATHER INFLATION, BUT HE'S A 'LONE SOLDIER' AMONG HOUSE DEMS

Now, this pair had faced 30 years in jail on terrorism charges, but that was too tough for the Biden DOJ. They'll be out in a couple, max. Why? Because they've got the right politics. And Liz Cheney is not giving you a lecture about. People who try to burn police officers to death are a threat to our democracy. No, they're fine. We're just going to ignore them. It never happened. This happens all the time.

In California, at the height of the BLM riots, a career felon called Tony Walker executed a 19-year-old Berkeley student called Seth Smith, walked up for no reason, never seen him before in his life and executed him, fired a gun into the back of his head. Why did he do this? Because of his skin color. It was a racially motivated attack. "F that White MF-er," Walker said. No one denies that. He said that, but here's the interesting thing, a guy is just executed on the street because he's got the wrong skin color.

Sounds like a hate crime, right? No. Merrick Garland's DOJ did not pursue hate crime charges. In fact, a month ago, prosecutors called an unbelievable deal with Walker. They sentenced him on a single charge of (brace yourself) voluntary manslaughter.

"F that White MF-er," he said as he executed a college student. It sounds like voluntary manslaughter.

This is a dangerous trend and not just because people are dying. Nothing destroys the legitimacy of our institutions more than politicized law enforcement. You can't have that. Justice must be blind. If there is a single institution we have to preserve for the sake of our children and grandchildren, it's our justice system and the law enforcement agencies that serve it. They can't be corrupt. If they're corrupt, it's going to be pretty hard to live here.

LAWMAKERS CLASH OVER CONSTITUTION, GUN RIGHTS IN HEATED HOUSE HEARING

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY), vice-chair of the select committee investigating the January 6 attack on the Capitol, speaks during a business meeting on Capitol Hill on Capitol Hill on December 13, 2021 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Liz Cheney and Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the lunatics on the January 6 committee have done far more damage to this democracy than the rioters ever did, far more. And now they're trying to make it worse. Axios is reporting that some members of the committee "want big changes on voting rights and even to abolish the Electoral College."

Abolishing the Electoral College? And if you're against that, of course, you're undermining democracy.

BOB COSTA: Was it a conspiracy?

CHENEY: I think certainly. I mean, look, if you look at the court filings.

BOB COSTA: You do believe that it was a conspiracy?

CHENEY: Ido. It is extremely broad. It's extremely well-organized. It's really chilling.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Oh, it's really chilling? What's really chilling is when the committee gets to arrest people, not because they violated meaningful laws or pose a threat to the United States, but because their politics are unacceptable, because they have given the finger to people like Liz Cheney. Is Liz Cheney okay with that? The upholder of democracy?

We texted Liz Cheney on Friday and said, "Are you okay? They just arrested a 72-year-old man who did nothing wrong. Doesn't that cross some kind of line? Are you going to stand up and say something about it?" She didn't respond.

The January 6 committee has just hired a former producer of Good Morning America called James Goldston. He'll be overseeing the committee's primetime hearings on Thursday night. So, the show trial now has a productionand of course, we'll be covering that in great detail on Thursday. By arresting Peter Navarro, they're hoping to shut up one of the most vocal critics before it begins.

Tucker Carlson currently serves as the host of FOX News Channels (FNC) Tucker Carlson Tonight (weekdays 8PM/ET). He joined the network in 2009 as a contributor.

See original here:
Tucker Carlson: Peter Navarro's arrest is a huge step toward the politics of the third world - Fox News

OPINION:

It is not quite clear why former Trump adviser Peter Navarro was arrested and jailed after being indicted for contempt of Congress. The arrest made at Reagan National Airport is all the more unusual because no one even thought about doing so to then-Attorney General Eric Holder, who was indicted for precisely the same crime 10 years ago.

For that matter, why have dozens of rioters (protesters?) from Jan. 6 remained in pretrial custody for the last 17 months?

Why have Molotov cocktail-throwing lawyers and killers involved in violent riots during the summer of 2020 been given extremely lenient plea deals in New York and California?

Why has no one at the FBI or other federal law enforcement been held accountable for their role in the societally destructive, libelous and wholly fabricated idea that former President Donald Trump and his campaign had, in some magical way, colluded with Russia?

Why is Hunter Biden, having obtained a firearm after lying on a federal application (a felony), still walking around a free man?

Why is the Jan. 6 committee asking questions from people like Mr. Navarro, who had nothing to do with Jan. 6? Why have they not called FBI informants in the crowd to testify? Why has the committee not asked about why the Capitols doors were open, or why the rioters were unarmed.

The answer in each and every instance is the unequal and unfair application of justice brought about by the politicization of federal law enforcement. That politicization, left unchecked, will eventually destroy the republic.

The Jan. 6 committee whose members talk a lot about the threats to democracy is, itself a legitimate risk to the republic. By issuing subpoenas to those with no material connection to the events of Jan. 6 (like Mr. Navarro), and to sitting members of Congress, the committee has nakedly politicized what should have been, at most, a modest examination into a law enforcement failure.

Conservatives are, by their very nature, institutionalists; they believe in the legitimacy of institutions. But the time has come to reassess those sentiments.

Federal law enforcement has become a threat to the Republic. There is no surer sign of the erosion of democratic norms than the politicization of the administration of justice.

We need a thorough and unflinching examination of the unwarranted, unwise and illegal acts executed by those who we have entrusted with guns and badges.

The pattern of lawbreaking and indifference to political, social, legal and governmental norms among the bureaucracies of the CIA, the FBI and the Department of Justice has become so obvious and so egregious that Congress must make a granular examination of the activities of those charged with safeguarding the United States and her citizens.

This effort should be led by a serious senator or House member; this is not a moment for the TikTok or Twitter members. This is a matter of the gravest urgency and will require an equally sober, deliberate and nonpartisan assessment of the depth of the crisis and the changes that need to be made.

Despite all the nonsense on both sides about insurrection (still, no one charged with that), elections being stolen, votes being suppressed and democracy dying in the darkness, the real and immediate risk to the republic is that some of those with guns and badges have become its enemies.

At a certain point, facts become inescapable. We know that some in the FBI and the DOJ wanted to select the president in 2016 and 2020 and fabricated evidence to do so. We know that law enforcement surveilled presidential campaign staff in 2016. We know that Homeland Security surveilled reporters and others. We know that some of those in the intelligence community and federal law enforcement have lied before Congress and elsewhere. We are watching the unequal application of the law in real-time.

Almost 2,000 years ago, the Roman poet Juvenal wrote: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? who watches the watchmen themselves? The only right answer and the one we face now is that we must watch the watchmen and be fearless and resolute in examining their conduct.

See more here:
EDITORIAL: Federal law enforcement the real threat to our republic - Washington Times

Page A20. Thats where newpapers normally bury stories about a deer walking inside a store or a bake sale to send kids to summer camp. But thats where the New York Times ran the story of an attempted assassination of a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America! At his home in front of his wife and children. Of course, the front page was reserved for the ridiculous January 6 hearing that should have been on page A21 following the stories of the deer and the bake sale if at all.

Wednesday morning, Nicholas John Roske, a 26-year-old Californian, arrived in front of Brett Kavanaughs home for the express purpose of assassinating the Justice, he admitted to authorities. He had traveled about 3,000 miles with a pistol, a knife, zip-ties, and other weapons to eliminate Kavanaugh for not only his likely vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, but also for his likely vote in support of the Second Amendment. (So, Roske was going to kill him with a gun for supporting the right to have a gun?) He told law enforcement officials that killing Kavanaugh would give his life purpose. Purpose indeed, but in the kingdom of darkness.

Its so ironic that this happened on the very eve of the J6 dog and pony show to investigate Donald Trumps incitement of the worst violence since the Civil War, as the Dems call it. Never mind that four Puerto Rican Americans began firing their guns in the House of Representatives in 1954, injuring five congressmen. Or that the Capitol building was bombed in 1971 by protesters of our air attack on Laos. Or the bombing in the Senate wing in 1983 by the Armed Resistance Unit in retaliation of military actions in Grenada and Lebanon. Or Special Agent John Gibson and Officer Jacob Chestnut being shot to death inside the Capitol in 1998.

Contrast all of that with a bunch of good ole boys walking through the Capitol in a quiet and orderly manner after parading right past Capitol Police officers (and even being waved-in by at least one of the officers), and one of them propping his feet up on Pelosis desk. Now, we all agree that was a dumb thing to do, like climbing the water tower in high school. But the worst violence since the Civil War?

Blaming incitement of this faux violence trespassing on federal property on Donald Trump is even more ridiculous. Trump offered the Pentagons highest official (at the time), acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller, 10,000 National Guard troops for the January 6 events but was ignored. And in Trumps speech at the Ellipse to his supporters, he encouraged them to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. That part was dishonestly omitted on MSMs video clips.

Representative Jim Banks (R-IN) told Fox News, Due to the rules of the United States Capitol, the power structure of the Capitol, Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, has more control and authority and responsibility over the leadership of the Capitol Police than anyone else in the United States Capitol, Banks said. So she doesnt want us to ask these questions because at the end of the day, shes ultimately responsible for the breakdown of security at the Capitol that happened on Jan. 6. And by the way, Pelosi has failed to release some 14,000 hours of video footage from the Capitols security cameras on January 6. Why is that?

Now, for the rest of the story, as Paul Harvey famously said the real incitement. The attempted assassination of Justice Brett Kavanaugh was incited directly by Chuck Schumer in a speech he gave in March, 2020. He said, I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You wont know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.

AG Merrick Garland and President Biden himself further incited the violence on Justice Kavanaugh with their silence after weeks of protesters breaking the law. And regardless of what The Tremelos sang in 1967, silence is not always golden. Silence was almost deadly Wednesday.

Every since the Leftist group, Ruth Sent Us published the home addresses of six SCOTUS Justices to encourage protests at their homes, theres been nothing but crickets from the AG and the White House. Such incitement is a crime under 18 U.S.C. 1507, which reads (numbered for clarity):

In Amos chapter 8, God through the prophet Amos reprimanded Israel for its wicked ways, one of which was Making the ephah small and the shekel large, falsifying the scales by deceit (verse 5). Its interesting that the very symbol of our legal system is a blindfolded Lady Justice, holding scales.

In that day, the ephah was used to measure wheat, while the shekel was used to weigh valuables for payment, such as coins, gold, and silver. The seller measured the wheat by the ephah and received in exchange silver weighted by the shekel. So, making the ephah small and the shekel large is a double deception, where the seller gives the buyer less wheat and receives in return a larger amount of silver.

The Democrats use this same system today. They make their improprieties small and the Republicans improprieties or made-up improprieties large. Eric Holder ignored a subpoena from Congress and literally went to Disney World the day of the vote. Nothing ever happened to him. But for the very same offense, they put Peter Navarro in handcuffs and shackles and dragged him off to jail. This was on the very same day Michael Sussman was freed for trying to overturn an election.

Under the law of Moses, a double-standard was illegal. Deuteronomy 25:13-15 says:

You shall not have in your bag true and false weights, a large and a small. You shall not have in your house true and false measures, a large and a small. But you shall have a perfect and just weight and a perfect and just measure, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the Lord your God gives you.

Nolan Lewallen is a retired pilot of a major airline and lives near Stephenville, Texas, with his wife, Kim. Nolans two greatest passions are the Bible and politics. His latest book, The Integration of Church & State: How We Transform In God We Trust From Motto to Reality, brings the two together.

Read this article:
A Tale of Two 'Incitements' - The Stream

Federal cannabis reform will be created in the image and likeness of whichever political party is in office when it finally happens.

And dont we know it. In fact, last week Bill Maher bemoanedthat Republicans are going to steal the issue, I think eventually.The RealTime talk show host, who was speaking withformer attorneyGeneral Eric Holder,is probably right.

Republicans, with their keep taxes low and government regulation to a minimum approach, might bebetter equippedpsychologically and practically to legalize cannabis, their conservative Christian wing notwithstanding.

Whereas the Dems are more disposed to taxes,regulationsand,to their credit, a strong emphasis onsocial equity andjustice as seen by an across-the-boardpush for expungement, their prohibitionist President notwithstanding.

Just take a look at the two major cannabis reform proposals one from each party that have been circulating in and out of the halls of Congress as well as state legislatures.

Senate Majority leader Chuck Schumeralong withSens. Cory Booker and Ron Wydenlaunched theirCannabis Administration and Opportunity Act(CAOA), whichwill, were told, beintroduced in Augustafter several false starts.

RELATED: Why Chuck Schumer Might Act On Cannabis Banking Sooner Rather Than Later

Then theresRep. Nancy Maces(R-SC)States Reform Act(SRA), which when introduced in 2021 was warmly greeted.

Both bills would remove cannabis from theControlled Substances Act, thuslegalizing it federallya good start. Many in the industry concur thattheDems CAOAleansmore toward social justiceand therefore enjoys support from theMarijuanaJustice Coalition, which includes theACLUandHuman Rights Watch.

MacesSRAis more big-business centered and enjoys the backing of theCannabis Freedom Alliance, which includes the Koch-funded groupAmericans for Prosperity.

RELATED: Sen. Lindsey Graham Open To Medical Marijuana, Rep. Nancy Mace Votes Against MORE Act

So, whoselegalization billand by extensionwhich congressional candidatesare executives of the U.S.s highest-valued cannabis companies supporting?

If you guessed NancyMace, go to the head of the class.

Cannabis Wiredid some digging into the Congressional campaign contributions made byexecutives of the following multistate operators:

Ascend Wellness

Ayr Wellness

CanopyGrowth

ColumbiaCare

Cresco Labs

Curaleaf Holdings

GreenThumbIndustries

TerrAscend

Trulieve

Verano Holdings

Of these companies, six CEOs made a campaign contribution in 2022. Four of them gave to Mace alone. One gave to Mace and toGary Chambers, a Democrat fromLouisianawho is running for Senate. And one gave only to Chambers, who made headlines in January when hesmoked a joint in one of his campaign ads.

So yeah, Bill Maher might have a point.

Link:
Nancy Mace Or Chuck Schumer: Whose Cannabis Reform Bill Are Big Weed Companies Supporting? - The Fresh Toast

Summary

Texas shooting renews debate over gun reform legislation. Sen. Chris Murphy begs colleagues to pass gun laws. Senate Democrats search for path forward on gun reform. Dems push GOP over resistance to pass gun legislation. Uvalde, Texas mourn victims of school shooting. Texas elementary school shooting echoes Sandy Hook. Beto O`Rourke confronts Gov. Greg Abbott at press briefing. Biden calls on Congress to pass gun laws.

LAWRENCE O`DONNELL, MSNBC HOST: That is tonight`s "LAST WORD," THE 11TH HOUR with Stephanie Ruhle starts now.

STEPHANIE RUHLE, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, once again, I`m Stephanie Ruhle. To notice guys, you know exactly what we`re here to talk about tonight. And it has been nearly 31 hours since this moment on the Senate floor that caught all of our attention.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHRIS MURPHY, (D) CONNECTICUT: I`m here on this floor to beg, to literally get down on my hands and knees and beg my colleagues. Find a path forward here. By doing something, we at least stop sending this quiet message of endorsement to these killers, whose brains are breaking, who see the highest levels of government doing nothing. Shooting after shooting. What are we doing? Why are we here? What are we doing? I yield the floor.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RUHLE: With us tonight, Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy.

Senator, I turn that question to you? It has been 24 hours what are we doing?

MURPHY: I was sitting presiding over the Senate last night or yesterday afternoon when I looked down at my phone and saw that another Sandy Hook had happened, 19 kids in Texas. And I went straight to my desk. And that was the question that I kept on asking myself and it was the question that I just spontaneously asked my colleagues, what are we doing? Why are we here? Why do you -- why do you care so much about being a United States senator if in the face of this evil, in the face of this carnage with all these parents who are just so frightened for their kids and all these kids are so frightened for themselves. What are we doing? Nothing can`t be the answer.

And Stephanie, I spent all day today from the minute I woke up until I literally sat down on this chair, talking to everybody I could in the Senate, Republicans and Democrats, asking them the question, what are you going to do? Are you prepared to sit down and try to find a bipartisan path forward?

I don`t know whether we`re going to be able to get there. But I found enough Republicans today that we`re willing to talk that over the next seven to 10 days where we`re going to have a discussion privately, confidentially behind closed doors as to whether there are 60 votes in the Senate to pass something that makes sure that less people have access to dangerous weapons or less dangerous people have access to weapons. And we will see, but I`m a little exhausted at the end of the day. And I`m also really hopeful that we`ll be able to try to convene a conversation in the Senate over the course of the next week about bipartisan support for anti- gun violence legislation.

RUHLE: But were those Republicans willing to talk to you today? Because 19 precious babies were massacred yesterday, a week from now, two weeks from now, do you really think they`re going to sit down and do more than have a conversation? You`ve been at this for a decade?

MURPHY: Yeah, I`ve been at this for a decade. But I also understand that great social change movements in this country often take more than a decade to effectuate change. Remember, it was more than a decade from the shooting of James Brady in 1981, to the passage of the Brady Handgun Bill, the background check system, it was more than a decade from the open casket of Emmett Till until the passage of the Voting Rights Act. So I understand that sometimes these important movements take a long time.

I think the question that Republicans will ask themselves over the course of the next few days is, will I pay a price this November? If I sit on my hands again?

Now, in 2018, Republicans did pay a price for doing nothing. And I think it needs to be voters and citizens and activists over the next few days that, you know, pepper these members offices with calls and emails to tell them that if they don`t sit down and work with people like me, who are willing to compromise that they are ultimately not going to get reelected, and that`s the question that my Republican colleagues will be asking themselves over the course of the next week.

RUHLE: Let`s say they don`t budge. What are three things Democrats could do tomorrow? The filibuster is not getting blown up.

MURPHY: Yes, so we need to ultimately have a debate and a vote, right? So what Senator Schumer has said and I agree with him, is that let`s give some space for these bipartisan talks but let`s put a time limit on that.

[23:05:09]

I think by, you know, this time next week, we`ll have a sense as to whether there`s any hope. And if we can achieve a bipartisan compromise, then let`s have a vote in the Senate, let`s have a vote on the background checks bill from the House, let`s have a vote on red flag laws. So Democrats can put up votes in the Senate, force Republicans to vote up or down, that`s one thing we can do.

The second thing we can do is to continue to build this movement to work with groups like Brady and Moms Demand Action and Giffords every town. Students Demand Action and March for Our Lives, we can work with them to grow their numbers, so they are more active and more powerful in the upcoming elections. And then we can finally, yes, for three things. So I`ll give you three things, we can work with the Biden administration to make sure that they are examining every single executive action possible if Congress fails to act, and there are things that the administration could do on their own to tighten up the nation`s gun laws.

RUHLE: Examining executive actions doesn`t do anything. Is there one executive action if you had the President`s here that you`d like him to take tomorrow?

MURPHY: So one of the things we`re going to talk about in these bipartisan negotiations, no doubt is the definition of what it means to be engaged in the sale of firearms, you have to do a background check if you are engaged in the business of selling firearms. The problem is, there are a ton of these online sellers and folks who go to a lot of gun shows, who claim that they`re not engaged in the business, that they`ve got another business. And this is just their side hustle. Well, many of them are selling, you know, dozens of firearms every year, they`re making lots of money, they should be licensed firearm dealers, and they should be conducting background checks.

I`m hopeful that we`ll get legislation that clarifies that, that`s one of the things I think we`ll be talking about. But the administration could act on that. So if we fail, I would certainly ask the administration to look at regulation or executive action that makes sure that everybody who`s legitimately doing business as a firearm dealer in this country, is licensed as a firearm dealer, and is conducting background checks.

RUHLE: I want to understand because the NRA, ironically, tragically, is having their big event in Texas in just two days. I want to understand the stronghold they have over the Republican Party, because we hear it every day, polls show most Americans want some kind of gun reform. But basically, nothing is done. So can you explain the roadblock? Is it when you combine Republicans because there`s lots of Republicans that are not hardcore NRA supporters? You represent Connecticut, there`s a whole lot of really rich Greenwich, Connecticut Republicans who have no affinity for guns, especially not assault rifles. But is it the combination of Republicans that are beholden to the NRA, and Republicans who are rich and want their taxes really low or single issue Republicans who really just care about limiting a woman`s right to choose? Is it when you combine that trifecta, the NRA gets their way? Because those other Republicans who care about taxes and abortion, they`re not paying attention?

MURPHY: Yet. Listen, I`ll be honest with you, Stephanie, I don`t know that I completely understand what the answer to that question is. But I have been engaged in the process of trying to discover that answer for 10 years. And I`ll share with you two thoughts. One, I think that the NRA has been very smart to associate the issue of guns with a broader set of values, right? So Republicans that, you know, want to talk about issues like freedom and liberty, end up using the issue of unrestricted gun ownership as the prism through which to talk about their affection for those values. It`s strange, because there are plenty of other ways to demonstrate that you care about individual liberty, other than the question of firearm ownership.

The second issue, I think, here is that, um, the Republican Party over the course of the last 10 years has kind of become a little devoid of ideas except for one, the destruction of government. The Republican Party used to have, you know, big ideas. Now, their one idea is let`s just have less government and no organization stands more solidly against the government. Then the NRA, which stands for the right of the citizenry, to arm themselves in rebellion against the government. So if you`re trying to prove how much you hate government, the NRA is endorsement has become sort of the clearest way you signal that to your constituents. And, again, we just have to find a different way for Republicans to be able to translate how much they hate government, other than the endorsement of the gun industry. We`ve got to solve for these problems but I think that that`s part of what`s happening here.

[23:10:05]

RUHLE: What I`m going to ask you about is a bit gruesome but you`re sort of taking me there. It`s not just about a right to bear arms. I want to ask you about assault weapons. You wrote yesterday in a tweet what it`s like for these parents, and I`ve been thinking about it all day, imagine dropping your third grader off to school. And in order to retrieve them to identify them, you need a DNA test. Because when someone is shot by an AR- 15 style weapon, their body is essentially destroyed, they`re massacred. You`ve seen these images, explain to us what these parents are going through, what they have to experience, because it`s so far beyond our right to bear arms. What happened yesterday.

MURPHY: So the bullets coming out of an AR-15 style weapon, are traveling so fast, that when they enter the flesh, they destroy everything in its path. Somebody once said to me, it`s like sort of taking your hand in a sink full of water, and going very, very slowly through it. That`s what a bullet from sort of an old school revolver may do to your flesh. But then take that same figure and rip it through that sink full of water. And you watch what happens to the surface of that water, it just spills over the side of the bowl, it takes 13 minutes before it resettles. That`s what happens when the bullet from an AR-15 moves through the body of a child. And so it is true. Some of these kids are unrecognizable. After they`ve had 14 bullets go through their head, their neck, their torso, it is true that sometimes only DNA can identify who these kids are.

And I just want people to understand that -- I want people to understand why there are no open caskets after Sandy Hook. And think about whether you want another set of families to go through that. I was there that evening, in Sandy Hook Connecticut, I was standing outside that room when Governor Malloy told 20 sets of parents that their kids were lying dead on those floor. I don`t know why anybody would want another community or another family to go through that. And there is something particularly vicious about what an AR-15 does to children`s bodies. There`s a reason why not a single kid who was shot Sandy Hook survived. Because those are weapons designed to kill human beings. And as many human beings as quickly as possible, I just don`t know why they deserve a place in civilized society.

RUHLE: So what is this community in Texas, about to go through? The law enforcement, the families, the whole community, you`ve experienced it in Connecticut, what`s about to happen in Texas? Tell us.

MURPHY: It`s a community that will never ever be the same. I don`t think you can really understand how deep this trauma is going to be because you connected to every single kid who lost their life or 20 people who care about them who are going to go through some diagnoseable trauma. But every single kid in that school is going through trauma right now. Because they came so close to losing their lives. Every single first responder who walked into that school is going to go through something horrific that no one should ever have to experience and in a small community that touches nearly everyone, that community never, ever recovers from this.

And Sandy Hook is a wonderful place. And there are plenty of families that are finding ways to heal there. But Sandy Hook will never, never be the same. And I know there are going to be resources there for the families at Uvalde but they won`t be enough. And I just want people to understand that because your community could be next. Your community could be next if we do nothing, again. And that`s why I need people to rise up right now and get up tomorrow morning and make a call to your senator, make a call your member of Congress, tell them that you don`t want your school and your community be next and you want Congress to do something about it.

RUHLE: Senator Murphy has agreed to stay with us. Please do, because on the other side of the break, I want to talk more about your journey 10 years after Sandy Hook when you were elected to office. I don`t think you are going to choose gun reform as your top issue and it`s become your life`s work.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:18:52]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MURPHY: Have we ever wondered what kind of community Newtown was, if we ever doubted the deepness of our love for one another. Those questions have been answered. All those wonderful little faces that you see on TV and in the newspaper, like Noah Pozner, who was laid to rest this morning. They`re a reminder that despite the terrible awful things that happen, that inside the hearts of all of us is this unbelievable goodness.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RUHLE: Back then he was Congressman Chris Murphy of Connecticut. He was leading the House in a moment of silence after a shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary killed 20 children and six adults. A full decade later, the Senator is still pleading with his colleagues after another massacre at an elementary school. Remember when we said never again, will again happened again and again.

Back with us, Senator Chris Murphy. Senator, you are elected to the Senate one month before the Sandy Hook shooting. You mentioned in our earlier segment what it was like for you yesterday when you saw the news on your phone but take us back to December 14, 2012, 26 people murdered, most of them children. What was that day like for you?

[23:20:12]

MURPHY: Yeah, it`s a day where, you know, I heard things and saw things that often I wish I hadn`t seen and heard. You know, I was on a train platform in Bridgeport, Connecticut, with my two little kids getting ready to go down to see the Christmas splendor of New York City, I was going to take the afternoon off, and I got a phone call that something had happened in my congressional district. And at first, I thought maybe it was a workplace shooting. But then I quickly heard the kids were involved, and I changed my plans. And I made my way up to Sandy Hook to find out what happened there. And my life -- my life changed that day.

I met some of the parents that are now very close friends of mine. That day, I met and talked to many of them later. But all of a sudden, you know, I had found my emotional center as a member of the United States Congress, I knew that now I needed to devote my life to honoring those kids lives with action, and it`s kind of unbelievable to me to 10 years later, I have not succeeded, but I don`t know that I`m going to give up until I have.

RUHLE: Since that day, you have made your way onto the Senate floor, pleading with your colleagues, again, after Sandy Hook after the pulse night shooting, nightclub shooting again, and again, and again. We`re looking at the videos right now. Walk us through what this journey has been like, the journey that took you to your knees yesterday? You couldn`t have been -- you haven`t been devastated. But sadly, you couldn`t have been surprised by the news?

MURPHY: Yeah, I`m not surprised by it. I mean, listen, I have to go back to the beginning. I mean, I`ll be honest with you, I`m kind of embarrassed that I didn`t work on this issue prior to Sandy Hook. I mean, I was a member of Congress for six years, there were slaughter happening, you know, every weekend in cities in Connecticut. And I didn`t work on this issue in the way that I should. Because, you know, this country pays attention to gun violence when it happens in these mass episodes. But it happens every single night in Baltimore, and Hartford and New Orleans. And I definitely look back with regret on the fact that it took Sandy Hook to wake me up to this epidemic. And I think I am trying to make up for last time.

I go down to the Senate floor to talk about this, in the wake of the shootings, because I just really worry that there is something rotting in the American core that is making us numb to this slaughter. I think we are on the verge of just thinking that this is normal and losing our sense of outrage. And I want to make sure that people see my outrage with somebody who works on this every single day. I don`t lose my outrage. And I want to communicate that to people so that they don`t lose theirs.

How is this to work on as an issue? It`s exhausting. I mean, I haven`t lost any kids. So I have no right to, you know, to complain. But, man, I mean, it`s difficult to work in an issue where there`s such trauma and such grief. But I just feel like having lived through Sandy Hook, feeling an obligation, those parents, I have no choice.

RUHLE: But that rot that you`re concerned about in America`s core. You know, when Sandy Hook happened, America stopped for a week, for more than a week it stopped. And as horrible as yesterday was, what was most disturbing for me, America didn`t stop. There`s a lot of people who didn`t hear about it. And that`s just a week after the shooting in Buffalo where not everybody is even buried yet. How concerned are you? That we`re becoming numb? We`re accepting. We`re just broken. It is what it is.

MURPHY: Yeah, I mean, I`m very concerned about it. And you`re right. I mean, this was -- this was the this the second worst school shooting in the history of the country. And yet it seems like it was a bit business as usual yesterday, I mean, your network stopped and other networks covered this extensively. But, you know, as I looked at my social media feeds, you know, plenty of other things were still occupying a lot of people`s attention. And I can only control so much here. And so I tried to display my sense of outrage and hope that it channels something in other people.

And I continue to spend a lot of time with the anti-gun violence movement, because I do think that the stronger, they get, the more likely we are to have legislation passed, but we are. We`re on the verge of just accepting this as the new normal in this country. And I don`t know how the nation survives, if we become this anesthetized to mass -- to mass violence.

[23:25:06]

RUHLE: Is one of your challenges that not enough voters make gun safety, their top issue, they care about it, they want something to change. But sadly, after a shooting happens if it`s not in one`s community, people feel sympathetic, but then they go about their daily life, and they`re thinking about gas prices in school?

MURPHY: I think, there are twin obligations here. One obligation is on leaders to do the right thing. But the other obligation is on voters to, you know, kick out of office, folks who over and over again, vote against what 80%, 90% of Americans want. I mean, it is pretty remarkable that, you know, people continue to get sent back to Congress and back to the United States Senate who don`t support things like universal background checks. So, yes, I do think we need more voters to decide that this is going to be a litmus test issue. For them.

That happened in 2018, that was part of the reason why Democrats won control of the House. I`m going to give my Republican colleagues a chance to do the right thing here. So I`m not ready to put this to the voters because I want to give Republicans the chance to show voters that they are willing to step up.

But the second obligation, Stephanie, is on Democrats. I mean, Democrats don`t run on this issue in the way that we should. There are way too many Democrats that are scared, think that there`s some political risk that there`s some political downside to talking about universal background checks, there isn`t. There isn`t this is a political winner, everywhere in blue states and red states and purple states. So, you know, Democrats need to campaign on this in 2022, because voters, you know, often don`t know the difference between the two candidates on guns because Democrats don`t run ads on it. Democrats don`t talk about this at the beginning of their speech. So we`ve got to lead on this if we want voters to make decisions based on positions that candidates have on this issue.

RUHLE: In order to make a difference, though, Sir, do you not just need to defeat Republicans? Do you need to defeat the NRA? I want to pull up on the screen, the top 10 senators who have taken the most money from the NRA over their careers. It`s a whole lot of money. And it is very, very powerful Republicans. As long as the NRA has the stronghold, it does. Does your battle have any real hope?

MURPHY: Listen, I think we just have to disabuse my colleagues of the notion that the NRA matters. I mean, it just doesn`t. They lose way more races than they win. You know, Joe Manchin, Pat Toomey, you know, took on the NRA, they wrote a background checks bill in 2013. They`re still both in Congress. Pat Toomey didn`t lose a primary from the right. Joe Manchin represents a very conservative district, he got reelected. So I just think we need to --

RUHLE: Senator, I have to interrupt then, if the NRA doesn`t matter, how come an 18 year old man bought two semi-automatic rifles on his 18th birthday and massacred a bunch of children yesterday?

MURPHY: No. Listen, my point is this. I agree with you that the NRA does matter, because it controls a big part of the Republican Party right now. But they have that control, because there is a fear of the gun lobbies electoral power. And what I`m saying is that we have to explain to people that that power is largely illusory, that if you stand with the 90% of your constituents that believe in things like universal background checks, the gun lobby can`t be you. In fact, you will win more supporters and more Congress. That`s how Pat Toomey is in Congress representing a state that generally votes for Democrats. They vote for Pat Toomey because he supports universal background checks. That`s what we have to convince folks of, but you are right. They hold a lot of power now, but they shouldn`t hold as much power because their political abilities are more mythology than they are reality.

RUHLE: Senator, thank you so much for giving us all this time tonight. I know how busy you are right now. I appreciate it. Senator Chris Murphy in the state of Connecticut.

MURPHY: Thanks, Stephanie.

RUHLE: When we come back, a live update from our own Ali Velshi on the ground in Texas. What we know about the investigation tonight and what led up to the massacre? When THE 11TH HOUR continues.

[23:29:32]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

RUHLE: Texas Governor Greg Abbott was holding a news conference on the school shooting in Texas this afternoon when he was interrupted by his opponent Beto O`Rourke was visibly frustrated as he confronted the governor. It`s fair to say Beto was done, no surprise he was a little profanity.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BETO O`ROURKE, (D) TEXAS CANDIDATE FOR GOVERNOR: The time to stop the next shooting is right now and you are doing nothing, you`re all bringing up nothing. You said this was unpredictable, this was totally predictable when you choose not to do anything. I`m standing up for the kids of this state to stop this from happening again. This is on you until you choose to do something about it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[23:35:11]

RUHLE: I want to bring in my partner, my friend Ali Velshi who is live in Texas hopefully not bringing any profanities to me tonight. Ali, my heart goes out to you when there is tragedy, when there`s crisis in the world, Ali Velshi is there. And there you are tonight. What`s it like?

ALI VELSHI, MSNBC HOST, "VELSHI": You`ve been with me when one of these. You and I have covered a mass shooting. There are too many to count. Look, this is a small, small town. I want to just show you in fact, since I was on the air at nine o`clock, this has happened. There`s a -- there`s a sort of a makeshift memorial there. But look at the crosses, they`ve just brought those crosses down. If you thought this couldn`t get sad, or there are 21 crosses now, with the names of the 19 children, and the two teachers who lost their lives yesterday.

We`ve been speaking to a lot of people in this town. It`s graduation season here. So when you go up and down the main street, there are large posters, graduation pictures of the high school grads, that this town is so proud of them. They`re in front of the high school, they`re in front of the city council -- the city hall and all that kind of stuff. And then all of a sudden two blocks away. These kids have had their lives snuffed out.

Now, this is interesting, because Texas is a place where people take their gun laws very, very seriously. I have not met anybody here who wants people`s guns taken away or doesn`t believe in the Second Amendment. They all think this is too much. This has gone too far. Can`t we do something and of course, that tracks with national polling, that you were just talking to the Senator about that. Most people think something like background checks or red flag laws should come into place. But that`s not where the governor of Texas is going. It`s not where the Attorney General is going. They`re talking about hardening the schools, more security ways of keeping weaponry out of it.

So it`s a small, small town, they`re trying not to be politicized about this. A lot of people in places like this have guns. When you drive up and down Main Street, you see these gun shops quite frequently. But there is a level of frustration with the idea that why does this continue to happen? You can`t even finish mourning one mass shooting in this country without going on to cover the next one. So it`s a very, very, very sad night, here in Texas.

But I have to say, Stephanie, as you know, this is a sad night for everyone. Reading the names of these children, their eight, nine and 10 year old children, Stephanie, they`re little kids, they were gathered in a classroom, this was their safe place. This is where parent parents think you go so that your kids are safe. Like it`s the one place in life, you can do that. So school shootings since Sandy Hook, since Parkland, they`ve always troubled us even more. And the idea that this has happened again, does beg the question, it`s not that we can`t do anything about it. It`s just that we won`t do anything about it.

RUHLE: Please tell me that all of the parents at this point their children have been identified. It was just a few hours ago that there were still some questions. I mean, that is just mind boggling.

VELSHI: Yeah. And I think that may be why there are now 21 crosses there because there were questions about full identity. And look, some of the difficulty there was that they had to take DNA swabs from the parents to match them up to their children. And you understand the implication of that, that`s how bad this was.

You know, when you walk around here, it`s a small community, you just see people weeping. There are people with photographs, and they`re just weeping, that they haven`t even fully comprehended this. The grieving hasn`t begun, the healing hasn`t begun. We`re not even there, Stephanie. We`re still in a state of shock and confusion here. And unfortunately, it doesn`t matter how many of these we cover. That`s how it goes. It`ll be some time before we start getting somewhere. And a lot of politicians, Stephanie, hope that we`ll just get to that point. It`ll be thoughts and prayers, and we will move on. I do -- I do think that each time this happens, maybe the needle moves just a little bit and I`m hoping that it will.

RUHLE: We will certainly express thoughts and prayers. And at the same time, we`re going to demand action. Ali Velshi, be safe. Thank you for being there. I miss you and adore you.

When we come back, another big interview, Eric Holder is here to talk about if America has been moving backwards on gun safety since one of the worst days he experienced serving as Attorney General., when THE 11TH HOUR continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:44:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, (D) U.S. PRESIDENT: The idea that an 18-year-old could walk into a store and buy weapons of war designed and marketed to kill is I think just wrong. It just violence common sense. Where`s the backbone? Where`s the courage to stand up to a very powerful lobby?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RUHLE: Where`s the courage? Joining us tonight to discuss, former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder. He is the author of the newly released and very timely book, Our Unfinished March: The Violent Past and Imperiled Future of The Vote, a History, a Crisis, a Plan.

I really appreciate you joining us tonight. Certainly, it wasn`t our plan to talk about another school shooting. But 10 years ago, you called the Sandy Hook massacre, the worst day you had as Attorney General. What does that say about the state of America here we are a decade later and we let it happen again?

ERIC HOLDER, FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL: Well, we`ve made little or no progress. You know, people often ask me, what was the best day you had as A.G. and I`m hard pressed to figure out what that was.

[23:45:08]

You asked me, what was the worst day I had as Attorney General? It was the day that I went to Sandy Hook with my Chief of Staff, Margaret Richardson, we met with the crime scene, search officers, with the first responders to thank them for what they did. We took into the classroom. And I saw the carnage that occurred in that classroom. I saw a little tufts of carpet picked up and didn`t quite understand what I was looking at. And then they told me, that`s where the bullets had gone through.

They painted -- they painted the images for me, as Senator Murphy was saying, what these little kids look like, how they were not identifiable. And I thought to myself -- I thought to myself, if America can see what I`m seeing up here today, this nation will move. This is not the surgical kind of thing that you see, you know, antiseptic thing that you see in the movies where blood goes in, and some blood comes out of a person`s wound, people`s faces are destroyed, limbs are separated, you know, I thought about Mamie Till, and what she did with the body of her son, Emmett Till, and display that for the nation, which was one of the things that made Rosa Parks not get up from her seat, which led to the civil rights movement.

If America had been with me that day, if we could somehow convey the nature of this carnage from his AR-15s, from these weapons of war, we could move this nation. And then we also have to deal with the structural things. You know, gerrymandering is something that is a problem here where people can side with the gun lobby with the special interests against the will of their constituents and not suffer any electoral consequence, because they`re in these safe seats. So it`s a combination of, I think, lack of will, structural problems. And we have to get to a better place, you know, we have 5% of the people in this world, and 45% of all the guns that are owned by private individuals are owned by Americans.

Do we need that many guns? Do we need weapons of war? Do we have to have these outsize clips? Why do we not have background checks? There`s a whole range of things that the American people agree on. And leadership of, you know, Senator Murphy, for at least for this American citizen doesn`t go without notice. I thought a lot of what you saw from him was presidential tonight, that`s what I saw from him.

RUHLE: Can you explain to us though, technically how that works, because people are saying, walk me through this gerrymandering? Why is it that the things I believe in the things I want, when you look at the polling, that doesn`t translate in my lawmakers and the policies they pass? Explain this to us.

HOLDER: Yeah, the lines were drawn -- gerrymandered lines are drawn in such a way that it`s almost impossible for the other party to win. And therefore, if you`re in a safe Republican seat, if the only thing that you`re concerned about is a primary, as opposed to a general election, and the way you forestall a primary challenger is to go further and further to the right, take more extreme positions, so that you can`t get outflanked from your right side, if you`re in that safe Republican seat, and a Democratic challenger comes on and says, you know, I want to fight for gun safety, you`re safe. And so you can just cater to your base, cater to that extreme part of your base, and not have to deal with or do that with your constituents by significantly large numbers want to have happen. I mean, the polls are like 80%, 90% of the people in this country, say that we should have background checks before anybody has the ability to buy a weapon. You don`t see that in law.

RUHLE: But then take me to that base, because if all politics is local, look at Texas, it had eight mass shootings in the last 13 years. But during that same period of time, the Republican controlled legislature has expanded where government where guns are allowed, and who can have a firearm in schools, like how open carry has expanded. How does that happen in a state that has experienced mass shooting, voters still say, oh, I`m down with that?

HOLDER: Again, that`s among the most gerrymandered states in the country. If you look at what just happened in this last redistricting cycle, Texas got two additional congressional seats. That was largely because of an increase in the population 90% of which was Hispanic people -- of 90% of which was people of color 50% of which was Hispanic people. And yet what they did in the gerrymandered legislature there was to create one more white majority district. And so they`ve maintained their gerrymandered power and frustrated the desire of people in the state to do the kinds of things that might over time, stop these kinds of mass shootings from occurring.

[23:50:02]

Continued here:
Transcript: The 11th Hour with Stephanie Ruhle, 5/25/22 - MSNBC