Mediaboss Marketing

Summary

Former adviser to Donald Trump, Steve Bannon has been indicted by a federal jury in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena. Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) is interviewed and answers questions regarding Steve Bannon being indicted for being in contempt. In the end it took less than a month for Steve Bannon to be indicted on contempt charges for refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena. The Biden White House is preparing for a big bipartisan ceremony on Monday to sign the big bipartisan infrastructure bill.

ALI VELSHI, MSNBC HOST: He was fined $25. He died in 1925 with that unjust conviction on his record and the knowledge that Plessy versus Ferguson, separate but equal was the law of the land.

Today we got proof that even though history might take a while to write itself, it usually does. And sometimes in some very surprising ways. An unlikely duo has been working together to clear Mr. Plessy`s name. They are the descendants of Homer Plessy and Judge Ferguson, the judge who ruled against him all those years ago.

Both sides joined together and petitioned the Louisiana Board of Pardons to clear Plessy`s record. And today, almost 125 years after his conviction that board voted unanimously to do the right thing. The pardon now goes to the governor for approval, and finally justice that`s been a long time coming.

That does it for us tonight. Rachel will be back on Monday. Now it`s time for the "Last Word." My friend Jonathan Capeheart is in for Lawrence tonight. Good evening, Jonathan.

JONATHAN CAPEHART, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, Ali. What a great way to end -- to end the show. I didn`t know that story. How fantastic.

VELSHI: We talk about Plessy vs. Ferguson all the time, the idea that Jonathan -- that Plessy never got his justice until today is a -- we don`t often get to end the show on nice things but that was a good one to do it on.

CAPEHART: Yes, and it`s a reminder that justice might take a while but eventually justice does happen. Ali, thank you very, very much. I`ll see you on Sunday.

VELSHI: Have a great show.

CAPEHART: All right. Breaking tonight, a federal grand jury has indicted former Trump advisor Steve Bannon on two counts of contempt of Congress. The indictment comes 22 days after the House of Representatives voted to send a criminal contempt referral to the Justice Department after Bannon refused to comply with subpoenas from the House Select Committee investigating the January 6th attack on the capital seeking deposition testimony and documents from him.

According to the indictment, "Bannon had not communicated with the Select Committee in any way since accepting service of the subpoena on September 24th." Attorney General Merrick Garland and the Department of Justice have been under immense pressure to hold Bannon accountable.

Tonight, Garland said, "Since my first day in office, I have promised Justice Department employees that together we would show the American people by word and deed that the department adheres to the rule of law, follows the facts and the law and pursues equal justice under the law."

NBC News is reporting that Bannon is expected to turn himself into law enforcement on Monday. He`s scheduled to appear in court Monday afternoon. Bannon is facing up to one year in prison and a $100,000 fine.

Tonight Select Committee Chairman Benny Thompson and Vice Chair Liz Cheney said, "Steve Bannon`s indictment should send a clear message to anyone who thinks they can ignore the Select Committee or try to stonewall our investigation. No one is above the law. We will not hesitate to use the tools at our disposal to get the information we need."

Select Committee member Jamie Raskin said this about Steve Bannon`s indictment on MSNBC last hour.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): Here we pursued criminal contempt and that`s just a crime. It was a criminal offense. He violated the law when he stood us up, when he blew off the subpoena. And he violated the law when he refused to produce the documents and the papers we were looking for.

But at the same time on a parallel track, if we bring a civil contempt action against him, the courts also have the power to compel him to testify and to bring us those documents. And if he doesn`t, he can be held, again, behind bars.

But he has the key to his own freedom as the contempt of bar says because all he has to do is testify and turn over the documents and he can get out of jail on the civil contempt side. But on the criminal contempt side if he`s found guilty he could be sentenced to jail or to probation, work some other kind of diversionary punishment.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAPEHART: Leading off our discussion tonight Democratic Congressman Eric Swalwell of California. He served as House Impeachment Manager during the second impeachment -- second impeachment trial of Donald Trump. Congressman Swalwell, welcome back to the "Last Word." You were part of both impeachment investigations in the Trump era. What do you make of this indictment?

REP. ERIC SWALWELL (D-CA): There`s a new sheriff in town, frankly, Jonathan and that the rule of law matters again in America. Look, for the last couple of years Steve Bannon has run around like a thug in a movie where the gang has the police and the local judge in their pocket, and he`s acted as if he could, you know, act with impunity and laws didn`t matter, almost like he was a pirate in international waters. And he never hid the fact that he believed that, really just defying the law.

[22:05:00]

And being pardoned by Donald Trump for bilking many Americans out of their hard earned money when they thought it was going to building the wall. And then, of course, just recently not showing up when he was supposed to for this January 6th committee.

But we`re not seeking this contempt order and we`re not celebrating Steve Bannon, you know, being indicted because he`s a bad guy, and Jonathan, he`s a bad guy. This is important because what happened on January 6th could happen again.

And if we don`t understand who was around the president, who financed what happened on the 6th, what the mind-set of the president was, this will happen again. And so this is, you know, the beginning of getting to the bottom of what happened.

CAPEHART: You know, there was a lot of concern on lots of shows on this network and among a lot of people about the fact that it was "taking too long," taking Attorney General Merrick Garland too long to do what he ended up doing today. Did you think that the attorney general took too long or did he walk through the process at the pace that it needed to be done?

SWALWELL: I didn`t think he took too long, and I was not in the camp that was too worried. I frankly appreciated having an attorney general who was independent again. And I was going to reserve judgment until a decision was made on this, and I think the right call was made.

And now the question is for Mark Meadows and so many other of the president`s enablers on January 6th. Do you want to go the way of Bannon and be indicted and be hauled into court, or do you want to cooperate? And if you don`t want to cooperate, Jonathan, then we should just draw the inference that you`re not cooperating because you`re protecting the guilt of Donald Trump or you`re protecting the guilt of yourself.

CAPEHART: So, Congressman Swalwell, do you think we are putting too much emphasis on this indictment of Bannon? I`m just wondering, does it bode well for the Select Committee investigating, waiting for more testimony and documents in a court ruling on executive privilege that what the Justice Department did to Bannon is going to send this -- really, truly, send the signal that will be heeded by all these other people that got slapped with subpoenas this week.

SWALWELL: Yes, it bodes well for justice. You know, this isn`t about red team versus blue team. This is about whether the rule of law matters anymore and whether people around the former president are above the law or if they have to follow the same laws that you and I have to follow.

And the department signaled today for first time in nearly 40 years that if you defy a congressional subpoena, you will be held to account. And now those dozens of others who have indicated they`re not going to come in or who have not come in, my money is, Jonathan, they`re going to be ringing the phones of the Select Committee over the weekend to try and schedule their appearances.

CAPEHART: You know, last night on "All In," Eric Holder, the former attorney general explained the difference between subpoenaed witnesses not testifying in the January 6th investigation and why he did as attorney general. Let`s listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ERIC HOLDER, FORMER UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL: I`ve testified nine times in connection with Fast and Furious, knowing that it was a kangaroo court that I was going before, but out of respect to the institution, out of respect to Congress, I thought that I had to go. In spite of the fact that Darrell Issa, Louie Gohmert and the other idiots on the oversight committee were doing things that were inconsistent with their oaths.

It was all political. I understood that, but I didn`t think as attorney general that I could refuse to go. I didn`t need a subpoena. They didn`t require to request a subpoena. If they asked me to come, I showed up. And, you know, as I said on nine occasions I did that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAPEHART: Do you think that was a consideration for DOJ that this wasn`t a good faith refusal of a subpoena but an attempt to nuke the process?

SWALWELL: Yes. And it was a continuation of what had happened under the prior administration in the Russia investigation when Don McGahn would not cooperate with the Judiciary Committee around what he had seen as far as obstruction of justice by the president in the first impeachment of Donald Trump as it related to the Ukraine scandal.

And of course, in the second impeachment where witnesses told us if we subpoenaed them they wouldn`t come in. So this was the pattern of the Donald Trump administration. And now, again, there`s a sheriff in town that says the rule of law matters.

And this matters, Jonathan, because the temperature is rising in America. We have a Republican Party that believes and is more comfortable with violence than voting. And as we go into the mid-terms, if we don`t have a rule of law that matters, this party who is bankrupt and void of any ideas to make anyone`s life in America better, they will seek to use violence if we don`t inoculate ourselves as Americans and as institutions against what`s coming.

CAPEHART: You know, before I let you go, Congressman Swalwell, given what happened to Steve Bannon today, being indicted. What do you think Mark Meadows, the former White House chief of staff, who was supposed to appear today and didn`t, what do you think is going through his mind right now? What do you think he`ll do?

[22:10:00]

SWALWELL: He`s wondering, what`s the fastest way to get a hold of the Select Committee and schedule his appearance. Again, Mark Meadows, look, there`s no honor for anyone that defies a subpoena. But, you know, Steve Bannon is pretty evil and we dealt with him during the Russia investigation. He was almost like the joker in the Batman movie.

Mark meadows, I`ve dealt with him, too. That guy doesn`t have any principles. He only thinks about himself. I`m not thinking if he`s going to go the way of Bannon. I think he`s going to fold quite quickly and the Select Committee will hear from him probably pretty shortly.

CAPEHART: All right, Congressman Eric Swalwell of California, and also belated congratulations again on baby Hank.

SWALWELL: Oh, thank you. Thanks so much, Jonathan. Have a good night.

CAPEHART: Have a good night. Joining us now are Cynthia Alksne and Glenn Kirschner, both federal former -- former federal prosecutors and MSNBC legal contributors. Welcome back to the "Last Word." Quick reactions from two Justice Department veterans.

Cynthia, I`m going to start with you. Take a look at the deposition calendar for subpoenaed witnesses. Do we have it? Is it going to come up? There it is. If you notice, Cynthia, from November 29th through December 15th with very few exceptions every day there is someone who is due to give -- due to provide deposition testimony in the January 6th Select Committee. Do you expect this indictment of Bannon, do you expect this will expedite cooperation from some of these people?

CYNTHIA ALKSNE, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: I do expect that it will expedite cooperation. And that`s really the most important thing about it because who are we kidding? Steve Bannon is never going to give any testimony. He`d rather rot in jail and then later make money and fund raise off of it. So, I don`t think we`re ever going to get testimony from Bannon, but its value was really is to push those people who were on the fence like, do I really want to fight this battle.

The second tiered people, those are the ones that will really make a difference. You know, Kaleigh McEnany is never going to give you anything of any value. Mike Flynn is never going to give you anything of value. But it will push those people who know something about what happened at Willard, who knows something about what happened in the communications between the members of Congress and the White House and what was going on during the insurrection and who paid for the insurrection and who paid for the buses and who paid for all that. It`ll make a difference for them. And that`s why I think it`s really of value today.

CAPEHART: Glenn, Steve Bannon can afford to pay lawyers for as long as it takes, but are other witnesses willing to bear that cost?

GLENN KIRSCHNER, MSNBC LEGAL CONTRIBUITOR: You know, I can`t imagine that now that Steve Bannon has been criminally indicted actually for two counts for contempt of Congress, one for defying their subpoena to produce documents and a second for just thumbing his nose at Congress and declining to even show up. You know, he`s facing up to two years in prison.

So I have to believe that the other witnesses, even people like Stephen Miller whom is scheduled to appear and was yucking it up with one of the hosts of the Fox Entertainment Network the other night, laughing about how, oh, you`re not going to comply. You`re not going to appear pursuant to a Congressional subpoena.

I have a feeling those people are now going to think twice before running the risk of being criminally indicted, tried and ultimately potentially imprisoned. So, I think this will have an important impact on the House Select Committee investigation moving forward.

CAPEHART: I want to get both of you on this, and I`ll start with you, Cynthia. Steve Bannon is arguing for executive privilege as an excuse to not comply with Congress.

And according to the indictment and I`ll read this, "Steven K. Bannon was a private citizen for approximately seven months in 2017, more than three years before the events of January 6th, 2021, Bannon was employed in the executive branch of the U.S. government as the Chief Strategist and counselor to the president. After departing the White House in 2017, Bannon did not work again in any executive branch or federal government position."

So, Cynthia, can Bannon prove his refusal to comply was in good faith using executive -- using the executive privilege argument following the advice of his lawyer?

ALKSNE: I don`t think he can. But before we get too far on that, let me say I think there is an -- there is somewhere in the executive privilege argument for people who work outside the government. I mean, just imagine if Biden decided he was going to ask Obama for some advice and Obama had not been in the White House for a long time. I mean, I think there is room in the executive privilege argument if speaking to somebody outside of government.

[22:15:01]

But that doesn`t apply here. "A," he didn`t show up and assert it. "B," he never followed through when he was supposed to do the documents. "C," he never answered questions about everybody else he had contacts with in the war room.

So, I don`t think it`s going to work here, but I don`t think we can make a blanket statement that whenever anybody isn`t working in the government there can`t be executive privilege.

CAPEHART: And, Glenn, real fast, so, a lot of the people who were given subpoenas this week particularly on Tuesday were people who were working for Donald Trump, who were with him on January 6th when he was still president. Does the executive privilege argument apply to them? Can they exert executive privilege?

KIRSCHNER: You know, the people who were actually in the administration at the time, and you know, during the time of January 6th, you know, they will have a somewhat more viable claim than Steve Bannon. Steve Bannon could have just said I`m invoking magical unicorn privilege and it would be just as compelling as an executive privilege claim.

Not to mention, Jonathan, all of these people including the ones who were in the administration at the time, cannot invoke executive privilege to cover up conversations involving the attempted overthrow of the United States government because that would be very similar to a crime fraud exception.

The executive privilege protection was not designed to be invoked to hide attempts to overthrow the government. I think with today`s indictment, this is virtually the Department of Justice saying to Steve Bannon hey, Steve Bannon, come to D.C. on Monday for your arraignment. We`ll be wiled (ph).

CAPEHART: That was a good one, Glenn. Glenn Kirschner, Cynthia Alksne, thank you both very much for joining us tonight. We have much more on this breaking news coming up.

But first, Donald Trump, of course, sympathizes with the capitol attackers who were chanting to kill Mike Pence. That`s next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[22:20:00]

CAPEHART: Here`s a quote that will stop you in your tracks. "The Republican Party is mainstreaming menace as a political tool." That`s how historians described it to "The New York Times," but you don`t need scholars telling you that. You can see the menace all around the U.S., against elected officials, school board members and health care professionals.

It`s the growing embrace of Trumpian rhetoric. The kind of rhetoric we saw inside the capitol insurrection. Of course, the fish rots from the head. So, to understand just how bad it`s gotten inside the Republican Party, look no further than their fearless leader, Donald Trump, who we learned today defended the insurrectionists who wanted to kill his own vice president.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

JONATHAN KARL, ABC NEWS CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Were you worried about him during that siege? Were you worried about his safety?

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: No, I thought he was well-protected. And I had heard that he was in good shape. No, because I had heard he was in very good shape. But, but -- no, I think --

KARL: Because you heard those chants, that was terrible. I mean, you know, the --

TRUMP: He could have -- well, the people were very angry.

KARL: They were saying hang Mike Pence.

TRUMP: Because it`s common sense, Jon. It`s common sense that you`re supposed to protect. How can you -- if you know a vote is fraudulent, right, how can you pass on a fraudulent vote to Congress?

(END AUDIO CLIP)

CAPEHART: And joining us now, Maria Theresa Kumar, President and CEO of Voter Latino and an MSNBC contributor. And former Congressman David Jolly. He left the Republican Party in 2018. He`s now the national chairman of the Serve America Movement and an MSNBC political analyst. Welcome both to the "Last Word." David, I`ll start with you. Defending violence, how low will your former party go?

DAVID JOLLY, FORMER REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN, LEFT REPUBLICAN PARTY IN 2018: Yes, Jonathan, very importantly, Donald Trump has created a permission structure of violent behavior within today`s Republican Party. And that`s not to say the entire Republican Party, certainly not. But they have invited into the Republican coalition under Donald Trump`s leadership largely white, largely male right-wing sympathetic extremists that the Department of Homeland Security and our domestic intelligence agencies have identified as a domestic violent threat.

And so what you see in those conversations with Jonathan Karl and otherwise is not simply a former president making it all about himself suggesting that there are constitutional scholars who wrongly think that the election was stolen from Donald Trump, but what you see is somebody refusing to condemn that the potential hanging of the vice president, and in doing so, extends this permission structure towards further violence.

And I think that`s the greatest concern is what our federal agencies have identified that we could see additional violence and perhaps even the loss of life as a result of rhetoric and the permission structure created by Donald Trump.

CAPEHART: Right. And Maria Theresa, I know, you know, I don`t want to, you know, down-play what Donald Trump is doing because it`s reprehensible, but you know who shouldn`t be left off the hook? Kevin McCarthy. I would just love to know your thinking on The House Minority Leader, the leader of the Republican conference in the House and the incredible silence we have heard from him after this week, after Paul Gosar, after Marjorie Taylor Green calling the 13 Republican members who voted for the bipartisan infrastructure bill traitors. He said nothing. Doesn`t that add to the permission structure that David is rightly warning about?

MARIA TERESA KUMAR, VOTO LATINA, PRESIDENT & CEO: Absolutely. And if you look at Kevin McCarthy, his own act, his own words, he peddles in this violence. He jokingly said that he was going to throw a gavel at Pelosi the moment that he became speaker. And it sounds funny, but this is not -- has the qualms (ph).

[22:24:59]

This is more past the more saying you are signaling what is acceptable. And this whole idea of creating and using words against your fellow colleagues would not be acceptable, Jonathan, in any other workplace. And we do not have to look too far in our past to recognize that when violence is used online it does translate into tragedy.

We only have to think of what happened in El Paso. We only have to think of sadly what happened in the Tree of Life synagogue, and the list goes on in short order of what happened when Donald Trump did the exact same thing.

And every single person that has created such chaos and created the most recent memory of violence has cited reading and be inspired by what Donald Trump said on his social platforms. And so, it really is on the leadership of the Republican Party to say this is not acceptable because the moment you`re no longer talking about policy and discourse, it becomes an erosion of democracy and a due erosion of trust.

CAPEHART: David, I want to show you some polling data that is scary. Polling finds that 30 percent of Republicans and 40 percent of people who most trust far right news sources believe that "true patriots may have to resort to violence" to "save the country." What do you fear could happen as we approach 2022 and 2024?

JOLLY: Here`s my great fear about where the Republican Party has gone, Jonathan. It`s a very important nuance. You know, from recent history the debate between the two major parties has been over essentially fairness and policy, whether ladders of opportunity are elevating people or taking away from others, marginal tax code, education, whatever it might be.

Today`s Republican Party particularly under Donald Trump, supported by McConnell and McCarthy and others is now suggesting to -- to their voters that something is being taken from you. Your freedom is being taken from you. Your place in society, your privilege. Something is being taken from you.

And once that narrative sets in, then that gives you permission to do whatever it takes to protect yourself. And that is the power that Donald Trump and today`s Republicans have tapped into. And to Maria Teresa`s point, it is up to Kevin McCarthy and other Republican leaders to say no, that is not the direction of this party. But they haven`t chosen to stand up to this. And that`s why the scoring goes beyond Donald Trump, but to the entire architecture of today`s Republicans in Washington.

CAPEHART: Right. And Maria Teresa, the GOP hasn`t really seen a backlash to the extremist tone at least not at the polls. So, do you think there will ever be an incentive to change?

KUMAR: I think that when you see what David Jolly has done, what Steve Schmidt has done, when individuals that are part of the Republican Party who are trying to sound the alarm and saying we are no longer talking about policy, we are talking about cultural ideology that is not part of our traditional political spectrum, that is what we have to elevate.

The idea you have so many Republicans that have been historic Republicans saying this is not the party I identify with, you know, leaving the party, I`m no longer running for office, we should sound the alarm bell. We are no longer talking about what is the difference between the left and the right.

We are talking about what is democracy and what is autocracy. And sadly, Kevin McCarthy by staying silent, Mitch McConnell by staying silent, they are espousing autocracy at all costs. And that is not only anti-Democratic, but in the beginning it may sound like it`s a nice idea for a few and the powerful.

But when that comes to roost at your doorstep, then it`s going to be harmful not just for the minority rule but for the majority of Americans. And that is really what we`re facing right now.

Read more from the original source:
Transcript: The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell, 11/12/21 - MSNBC

OKLAHOMA CITY Peace seems to reign in legislative land when it comes to the new district lines for state House and Senate districts.

In the end, most of the 48 state senators and 101 state representatives are looking at districts for the next Legislature (whether or not they are seeking reelection) which they can live with, in the characteristic legislative parlance.

When it comes to the proposed new lines for the states five U.S. Congressional Districts?

Not so much.

In fact, the difference in response to the congressional plan versus the legislative plans might be deemed the difference between night and day.

Final plans likely by Friday, but Democrats not happy

Republicans will likely get their way by Thursday or Friday of this week on all of the new lines, but rhetorical exchanges began in the days before the special session which convened on Monday, continued today (Tuesday) and will no doubt continue across the finish line.

Democrats in both chambers want to change the way Oklahomas Congressional lines are drawn.

Oklahomans deserve better than the same old political gerrymandering, said Senate Democratic Leader Kay Floyd, D-Oklahoma City in a Monday (November 15) press release.

The legislature should vote on a fair congressional map this week.

In a legislative press release, State Rep. Andy Fugate, D-Del City, said of his partys alternative vision, The legislation we propose will create an independent, non-partisan redistricting process. Weve had a century of the same old game being played by politicians and power brokers. Its time to stop the games.

Alicia Andrews, leader of the Oklahoma state Democratic party, said in an earlier statement shared with The Oklahoma City Sentinel, "The Republican-Super-Majority legislature has told Oklahoma voters that they do not matter. The newly released redistricting map is nothing more than Republicans protecting their super majority at the expense of silencing marginalized communities. This carved up map demonstrates how Republicans want to control who is heard or not heard at the polls.

Andy Moore, executive director of People Not Politicians, also jabbed at the plan recently: "The congressional map is pretty clearly drawn to protect incumbent politicians. And it very clearly cuts up Oklahoma City."

Sean Murphy, reporting this week for The Associated Press, summarized the impact of the likely Congressional framework with these words:

The proposed new map carves out a large portion of Democratic precincts on the south side and central core of Oklahoma City and places them in the heavily Republican 3rd District that stretches across northwest Oklahoma into the Panhandle. The new map also adds more rural voters in Logan and Lincoln counties.

State Rep. Forrest Bennett, a south Oklahoma City Democrat, said, If you look at Oklahoma County, it looks like they took a big ol' bite out of the southwest corner.

In any case, as Murphy summed up, around 181,000 Oklahoma County residents, many from the Hispanic population on the south side, would be shifted into the Third Congressional District if the Republican plan is enacted.

The plan would have practical benefit to incumbent U.S. Rep. Stephanie Bice, R-Oklahoma City, seeking reelection for the first time.

As pointed out in this reporters previous analysis, the Republican plan is actually evocative of congressional redistricting undertaken in 1982 and 1992, aiming to sustain an existing advantage for Democrats by putting much of south Oklahoma City in the old Sixth District (now the bulk of the Third).

Democrats controlled every reapportionment/redistricting process for most of Oklahomas history, although that dominance began to fade after the 2000 Census.

As debate continues, it is the involvement of the People Not Politics group that sharpened the rhetoric of Republican legislative leaders early this week.

GOP Legislative Leaders Blast Democratic Proposal, and dark money group

A joint House-Senate GOP release on Monday declared, Democrat legislators filed last-minute legislation containing a proposed congressional redistricting map drawn by People Not Politicians, a nonprofit advocacy organization that has not publicly disclosed its donors or Internal Revenue Service Form 990.

Democrat legislators also filed a measure repeating a redistricting commission proposal by People Not Politicians in Initiative Petition 430 which would result in Oklahoma having more than 48 senators and which was unsuccessful at the Oklahoma Supreme Court. According to nonprofit tracking service GuideStar, People Not Politicians has more than $335,000 in gross receipts since its formation.

Speaker of the House Charles McCall, R-Atoka, elaborated the Republican view:

We are proud the Oklahoma map is more compact overall, protects military bases and incorporates widespread public input that the Democrat map ignores. Its disappointing Democrats have adopted redistricting plans by a secretive dark money group that has refused to disclose its donors so Oklahomans can know whether national Democrat partisans are the true funders of the groups advocacy.

Since the head of People Not Politicians also runs Freedom of Information Oklahoma, we are calling on legislative Democrats to join Republicans in urging People Not Politicians to provide the same kind of transparency FOI Oklahoma advocates for by disclosing all its donors.

The GOP joint release included these details: The map People Not Politicians proposed and Democrats filed takes military communities out of Congressional District 4, while the Oklahoma map the states redistricting process produced continues to keep those communities in the district due to overwhelming public comment in support of the approach, which has been successful in Oklahoma for 40 years.

The Legislatures redistricting process was the most open and transparent in history, said Senate President Pro Tempore Greg Treat, R-Oklahoma City.

We asked for and received input from Oklahomans; and those sentiments helped guide the work of our redistricting committees. Our commitment to transparency and our inclusion of public input from all parts of the state, yielded good maps for both legislative and congressional boundaries. I am proud of the work of the Legislature and think it reflects well on the wishes of Oklahomans.

Treat added: Democrats have copied and pasted a congressional map by a secretive group, likely funded by dark money, and led by a partisan political mercenary who ironically leads a pro-transparency media advocacy group. Regardless of what they are hiding, they have the same goal as Nancy Pelosi and former Obama Attorney General Eric Holder: electing liberals to office.

And with the [proposed] redistricting commission, they also are copying the effort of Pelosi and Holder to push a federal takeover of state elections.

Dont believe the rhetoric about fair maps. Democrats didnt produce a fair map. They have concocted a map solely to get liberals elected in Oklahoma.

Follow this link:
Night and Day: Oklahoma Legislative Majority and Minority party views of proposed Congressional lines News Analysis - City-sentinel

Redistricting its a big yawner for most people. Yet some politicians become experts on the ins and outs of redistricting, using it to partisan advantage. As in many things, Republicans are better at this than Democrats.

In fact, Eric Holder chairs a national committee to improve Democratic skills in redistricting. (Its called gerrymandering when the other side does it.)

The Associated Press, in a recent analysis, said Republican politicians used 2010 census data to draw voting districts that gave them a greater political advantage in more states than either party had in the past 50 years. The analysis shows state after state where Democrats won statewide (governor or U.S. Senator) but lost the Congressional delegation and/or state legislative control because of redistricting.

Jim Cooper

U.S. Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Nashville) can lose his seat in 2022 after the General Assembly draws new Congressional districts. They can simply carve Nashville/Davidson County into 3 or 4 wedges that extend into adjacent, Republican districts.

In my lifetime, the states Congressional ratio was 7-2 Democratic until Bill Brock grabbed District 3 around Chattanooga in 1962. Now the ratio is 7-2 Republican. And after the GOP whacks up Jim Coopers district, that ratio could drop to 8-1.

Closer to home, the Knox County Commission will vote this month and next to redraw the district lines for itself and the school board. A committee is at work. With 9 commission districts and a population of 477,857, the ideal district would have 53,095 residents. Current districts range from Terry Hills District 6 (61,300) to Dr. Dasha Lundys District 1 and Carson Daileys District 9, each with about 49,300 residents.

Kudos to the technical staff that designed this website. Its awesome. It maps the current districts and each of 7 proposals. Four have been withdrawn and three are pending: Plan 3B, proposed by committee chair Kyle Ward, was adopted by the committee on Wednesday (10/6). Another plan is proposed by school board chair Kristi Kristy and another by Commissioners Courtney Durrett and Lundy.

Wards plan has the most upheaval, moving 42,500 people to a different district. The others move around 30,000 people. All three move the East Knox County precincts of Ramsey and Riverdale from District 8 to District 9.

In Wards plan, District 3 (Randy Smith) would give up wards in the Norwood area and pick up Ball Camp from Hill. The Norwood area wards would go to District 2 (Durrett) and she would give up Shannondale County (74th precinct) and Holston Hills (ward 31) to District 8 (Beeler).

At this point, give Wards plan (3B) the best chance of passing. The plans must pass the full commission on two readings.

Sandra Clark is editor/CEO of Knox TN Today.

More:
Winners and losers in redistricting - Knox TN Today

Legalized recreational marijuana may soon be a reality for Oklahomans.

KOCO reports a group known as Oklahomans for Responsible Cannabis Action (ORCA) filed a petition on Thursday (October 7) to make recreational marijuana legal in the Sooner State.

I knew that it would only be a matter of time before the push for recreational marijuana would begin in Oklahoma following the legalization of medical marijuana in 2018. Thats pretty much the way it happens in every state. In all, nineteen states have legalized recreational marijuana so far.

The petition calls for the expungement of criminal records for those with prior marijuana convictions and will allow residents to grow a certain number of plants, among other things.

If legalized, recreational marijuana products will be sold through existing medical marijuana dispensaries, which wont need any additional licenses. Recreational marijuana will be legal for sale to anyone over the age of 21.

ORCA founder Jed Green says the legalization of recreational marijuana in Oklahoma is inevitable:

Recreational marijuana is an inevitabilityThe thing to know is that we as a community are stepping forward and saying, hey, these some things we believe need to be done and we are willing to step up and help get them done.

I agree that it is an inevitability. In fact, I believe that we will see recreational marijuana legalized at the federal level at some point. Former U.S. attorney general Eric Holder, who served under President Barack Obama says that the country is clearly on the path to decriminalizing marijuana at the federal level.

Lend your signature to the petition at this location.

Data for this list was acquired from trusted online sources and news outlets. Read on to discover what major law was passed the year you were born and learn its name, the vote count (where relevant), and its impact and significance.

More here:
Petition Filed to Legalize Recreational Marijuana in Oklahoma - 929nin.com

Summary

1/6 select committee subpoenas far-right activist Ali Alexander; 1/6 select committee issues new subpoenas; Senate judiciary committee releases report on Trump and allies pressuring DOJ to overturn election; GOP Representative Biggs falsely claims we don`t know who won the 2020 election in Arizona; Trump and allies stonewalling 1/6 select committee; Trump urges allies to defy 1/6 select committee subpoenas.

JOY REID, MSNBC HOST: How are you doing, Ari. No wine tips, what? Fix that man, get some wine tips going.

ARI MELBER, MSNBC HOST: None, zero.

REID: Get them going. All right, thank you very much. Have a good evening.

Good evening, everyone. We are following several major stories tonight, including late night ruling halting Texas`s darn near abortion ban and bounty hunter law. And within the hour, if all goes as planned, the Senate will vote to temporarily raise the debt limit avoiding total economic catastrophe.

But we begin THE REIDOUT tonight with new developments from the House select committee investigating the January 6th insurrection. Late today, the committee issued subpoenas to two individuals and one organization involved in planning one of the rallies that precipitated the Capitol attack.

Among the targets is Ali Alexander, the key organizer of the so-called Stop the Steal effort who reportedly went into hiding after January 6th. Alexander alluded to the possibility of violence in the weeks leading up to insurrection. And on the night before, he even led the crowd in a chant of victory or death. The most significant is that Alexander is the one, as you may recall, who implicated three sitting members of Congress in planning the events of that day.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALI ALEXANDER, FAR-RIGHT ACTIVIST: I was the person who came up with the January 6th idea with Congressman Gosar, Congressman Mo Brooks and then Congressman Andy Biggs.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

REID: Meanwhile we`re learning more and more about the insurrection -- more and more that the insurrection was really just the endgame of a long planned attempt to overthrow the duly elected president before he could be sworn in. A 400-page interim report from the Senate Judiciary Committee makes it clear step by step how Donald Trump planned to pressure and coerce the Justice Department into joining his effort to overturn the election. It reveals that were it not for a handful of DOJ officials, Trump`s power grab could have ended democracy as we know it.

Among other things, the report details a three-hour meeting on January 3rd, in which Trump threatened to replace acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen. According to Rosen, Trump opened that meeting by telling him that one thing we know is you aren`t going to do anything to overturn the election.

In Rosen`s place, Trump wanted to install Jeffrey Clark, a lackey who would back his baseless claims of voter fraud. And if Clark`s name sounds familiar it`s because he is the guy who pushed the DOJ to send letters to officials in Georgia and other states asking them to void their election results.

In other words, Trump wanted the top law enforcement agency in the country to lend its credibility to the big lie, a move that would have sparked a constitutional crisis or worse. That crisis was only averted because all of the other DOJ officials in the room made it clear that all of the assistant attorneys general would resign if Trump replaced Rosen with Clark.

Even Trump`s White House Council Pat Cipollone, threatened to resign, calling Trump`s plan to issue Clark`s letter a murder/suicide pact because of the chaos that it would unleash.

All of this played out behind closed doors just three days from January 6th, and it represents just a fraction of what the committee uncovered. It`s further proof not only of Trump`s personal disgrace and desperation to claim the power but also his complete contempt for the democratic principles this country tells the world that it stands for.

And that is not hyperbole. Trump compromised the independence of the DOJ, he defied the constitutional limits on executive power and subverted the electoral process. And don`t take my word for it. Trump`s own lawyer, John Eastman, put it in writing providing a literal blueprint for how to pull off a coup in America.

All of these abuses beg the question, who is going to hold Donald Trump accountable? Because as we speak, Trump is stonewalling legitimate inquiries into his conduct while perhaps planning to try it again. He`s instructing his allies and former officials to defy the lawful subpoenas from the select committee. In fact, today, today marked the deadline for four of those subpoenaed aides to turn over documents ahead of their scheduled hearing next week.

Joining me now, former Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Glenn Kirschner, former Federal Prosecutor, and Kurt Bardella, Adviser for the DCCC. Thank you all for being here.

Glenn, I`m going right to the center of my screen here, I`m talking to you, because the stakes in those subpoenas next week seem to me to be pretty big ,because if those officials, those Trump officials don`t show up the way that they did during impeachment, if they just ignored those subpoenas, what needs to happen in order for us to essentially still have a rule of law in this country?

GLENN KIRSCHNER, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: Well, you know, there are three vehicles for Congress to enforce its subpoenas. Civil enforcement, I would say, let`s just throw that one out because that`s what they tried with Don McGahn, Joy, and he ran out the clock for more than two years and he was never compelled by a court to testify. He ultimately negotiated some very favorable terms of behind closed doors testimony.

That leaves two alternatives. One, criminal contempt, what the Congress can do is vote out a contempt against the witness who fails to appear, refer it to the Department of Justice.

[19:05:02]

And then the law says that the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, quote, has a duty to present the matter to the grand jury for its action. What does that action look like? A criminal indictment for contempt of Congress. And that can be used as a vehicle to force a witness to testify or send him to prison for a year if he declines.

The third option that I hope Congress will seriously consider is its inherent power of contempt. It was last used in the 1920s and `30s, used successfully by Congress, and the Supreme Court has affirmed that it`s a lawful tool in Congress` toolbox. When it comes to a guy like Steve Bannon, who there can be no claim of executive privilege for, he left the administration in August of 2017. I hope Congress seriously considers using its power of inherent contempt and force him to testify because not all contemptuous witnesses are made equal.

REID: Yes. And, you know, let`s go on to some of the newer subpoenas. Claire, I`m going to start with you on this. So, Ali Alexander, he has been one of the more interesting figures in this attempted coup on the country because he has bragged that he had help, that he had help inside the Congress. He`s one of the organizers of the so-called Stop the Steal. He has said that Congressman Andy Biggs, Congressman Mo Brooks and Congressman Paul Gosar helped him plan his D.C. rally, which was not the ellipse rally, it was a different D.C. rally.

Speaking of Andy Biggs, let me let you listen to him today. He had an exchange with Congressman Jamie Raskin that I think you will find interesting.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): I hear him not even to be accepting the results of this audit, which say that Joe Biden got more votes than were lawfully reported. Do you accept this audit which showed that Joe Biden won and indeed by more votes than --

REP. ANDY BIGGS (R-AZ): That is not what the audit concluded, Mr. Raskin.

RASKIN: Who won the election in Arizona? Donald Trump --

BIGGS: We don`t know. Because as the audit -- it demonstrates very clearly, Mr. Raskin, there are a lot of issues with this election that took place.

RASKIN: Madam Chair, there is the problem that we have. Donald Trump refuses to accept the results. And, unfortunately, we have one of the world`s great political, parties which has followed him off of the ledge of this electoral lunacy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

REID: Claire, it seems to me the logical next person to be subpoenaed would be Andy Biggs, if it was me. What do you think?

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, all three of them. I mean, we have a witness who is now saying -- who has said publicly, if you are investigating this, that he was in coordination and cooperation with members of Congress.

Now, it may turn out after they`re subpoenaed and we get their testimony, that there was not anything that was beyond blind loyalty to a guy who doesn`t understand the rule of law or what our democracy is all about, but we now know that there is someone who planned this that says he was working with members of Congress. So, them trying to avoid saying what they know is just not going to come out in the wash.

And I will tell you this, Joy, having talked to some of the members, they are determined not to be trumped in this investigation, and by that I mean they are determined not to allow his acolytes to avoid the scrutiny they deserve by just running out the clock.

And I`ve said this before and give me just a second to say it again, if we have the majority and we can get it done, and I think we can get some Republicans, we must create a rocket docket in the courts for congressional subpoenas. If Congress is asking for information, they deserve to have the facts determined and a decision made by the courts immediately, before anything else is going on. And we`ve got to do that because this running out the clock is what`s really undermining everybody`s faith in this system.

REID: Yes. I mean, and, Kurt, the problem here is that you`re dealing with figures who are used to operating from the fringes that have now moved and eaten up and gobbled up the Republican Party. Ali Alexander is a fringe figure, if everybody has written anything about him. But used to be -- it use to be, so was Steve Bannon. He`s also on that subpoena list.

So, I mean, talk about how this ends up playing out because Republicans have already gotten away with defying subpoenas. They did it before during impeachment. So, what now?

KURT BARDELLA, DCCC ADVISOR: I mean, we spent the better part of four years of the Trump presidency watching Republicans any time a subpoena was issued by the Democratic majority go, we don`t care. They would literally call them fake subpoenas. They would say that we don`t have to even address these at all and they ran out the clock successfully. And all the while they were hailed these heroes for defying congressional oversight.

[19:10:03]

These same Republicans, by the way, who spent the entire eight years of Barack Obama`s presidency issuing subpoenas, having hearings, holding people like Eric Holder and contempt of Congress, thumping their chest every single time about America`s right to know, we have oversight responsibilities, that the path to truth runs through the oversight committee, it`s what Jim Jordan once said at a hearing, that was the standard that they set.

Now, that the shoe is on the other foot, Republicans are assuming that Democrats won`t do the things that Glenn Kirschner was just talking about, that they won`t invoke the inherent powers that they have to rightfully and lawfully enforce subpoenas to get to the truth.

And I`ll tell you, Democrats, if you didn`t learn the lesson during impeachment, if you didn`t learn the lesson from four years of Donald Trump and people like Steve Bannon and Mark Meadows basically telling you to go pound sand every time you invoke your authority, I don`t know what`s going to get you to wake up, but you need to. Because I will tell you, if we don`t use our authority now to get to the bottom of a domestic terrorist attack on our Capitol, if we don`t hold people accountable, if we don`t put people in jail, I don`t know what the point of a democracy is.

REID: I mean, Glen Kirschner, there is -- I mean, Article 3 of the 14th Amendments states that somebody who engaged in insurrection against the United States is actually not qualified to hold office. And I assume that goes all the way from Congress up to the president. There are active criminal investigations against Donald Trump. Georgia is going after him for interfering in their election. Walk us through a way in which Donald Trump could be legally held accountable.

This Senate memo, this committee memo, it makes it very clear that he had a formal plan to steal the election. The Eastman memo makes it clear. This investigation makes it clear. What could he be charged with, if anything? And is there a way to do that to keep him out of the Oval Office again?

KIRSCHNER: Great question, Joy. Yes, the way to hold him accountable is for the Department of Justice to indict him for the many crimes he inarguably committed.

Let`s just take one from the Senate Judiciary Committee`s recently released report, and I think you read the quote in your opening. He is quoted as saying about acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, quote, one thing we know is you, Rosen, aren`t going to do anything to overturn the election, close quote, and then Donald Trump threatened to bring in this character, Jeffrey Clark, who was willing to do Donald Trump`s corrupt and criminal bidding to try to overturn the election results.

And real quickly, Joy, you know, I don`t go anywhere without my big, ugly blue book of federal laws, the United States code. That quote from Donald Trump precisely violates a federal statute, 18 USC 610, coercion of political activities. And it`s very short. It shall be unlawful for any person to intimidate, threaten, command or coerce or attempt to intimidate, threaten, command or coerce any employee of the federal government to engage in or not engage in political activity.

It`s a three-year federal felony and what was just published by the Senate Judiciary Committee shows inarguably Donald Trump committed that crime. All that is left is for the Department of Justice to step up and indict the crimes we all know Donald Trump committed.

REID: And I guess the question then becomes, Claire, does Merrick Garland have it in him to do that? And there -- you know, I`ve been in a deep dive on the 14th Amendment today, Article 3, that some people believe it`s self- enforcing, that, in fact, Congress could enforce it against people like Mo Brooks and Andy Biggs and others who perhaps engage in insurrection, if it is found they did, right, if they were involved, Paul Gosar being the third. Do you believe Democrats in general have it in them to self-enforce if that`s the way to keep these people out of power or get them out of power?

MCCASKILL: It`s interesting, Joy, because what you`ve got here is you`ve got people who want to cling to the norms.

REID: Yes.

MCCASKILL: The norms are you don`t use the criminal law to go after political opponents. That`s the norm. But the problem is they`re dealing with someone who blew up all the norms and who we all know, if he got the chance, can you imagine how he would stack the DOJ? I mean, it took him a couple of years giving back his hand to people around him who were saying, you can`t do that. You shouldn`t do that. You can`t do that. And then finally he figured out, who cares, I`m going to do it anyway.

REID: That`s right.

MCCASKILL: Well, he would go into office on day one and he would stack DOJ with people like these yahoos and this clown car of lawyers that ran around the country making up lies.

So, I think that Garland -- and, by the way, the professional prosecutors at DOJ are the ones who stopped Donald Trump in that January 3rd meeting, they`ve got to like really take -- do a gut check here. I get it that we don`t like to use criminal law in a political context, but this is a context of saving the democracy and respecting the rule of law. And I think that`s the analysis they have to do and they have to go after Donald Trump for doing what is in plain sight.

[19:15:06]

REID: Yes, absolutely. I wish we had more time because I would do -- what would Republicans do, because in their place, you know, Kurt, the Republicans would waste no time.

BARDELLA: Three words, lock them up. That`s what they would do.

REID: That`s what they would do. Claire, we`ll be back later in the show. Thank you, Glenn Kirschner and Kurt Bardella.

Up next on THE REIDOUT, the draconian abortion law of Texas is blocked by a federal judge. Will this case become another test of Roe v. Wade in the Supreme Court?

Plus, a live look at the Senate which, if all goes as planned, fingers crossed, is just moments away from voting to raise the debt ceiling, which would avert an economic catastrophe at least for now. But can we not do better than just kicking the can down the road?

Also, new evidence vaccine mandates work and might be the only way to get anti-vaxxers to take the jab.

Plus, the shocking new video showing just how far the anti-mask crowd is willing to go. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy joins me.

And tonight`s absolute worst, and racism becomes almost a prerequisite for advancement in today`s GQP.

THE REIDOUT continues after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:20:15]

REID: The nation`s strictest abortion law has been put on hold, at least for now.

A federal judge has blocked "The Handmaid`s Tale"-style Texas law that prevents women from ending pregnancies after six weeks, before many women even know that they`re pregnant, and puts lawsuit bounties on their and abortion providers heads.

In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman calls the law unconstitutional and writes -- quote -- "From the moment S.B.8 went into effect, women have been unlawfully prevented from exercising control over their lives in ways that are protected by the Constitution. This court will not sanction one more day of this offensive deprivation of such an important right" -- unquote.

The state of Texas has already filed its intent to appeal the decision. While some Texas abortion providers say that they are providing full services again, others are hesitant because of a provision that Texas Republicans tucked into this bill for this very situation.

It basically states that anyone who performs an abortion or helps in the act, even while the law is temporarily blocked, would still be liable to being sued if the law is reinstated.

Joining me now is Michelle Goldberg, columnist for "The New York Times," and Joyce Vance, a former U.S. attorney.

And, Joyce, I`m going to start with you, because the appeal is in. Can you walk us through what the appeal, in theory, could be based on and how successful you think that appeal might be, given how conservative the Fifth Circuit is where they are taking this appeal?

JOYCE VANCE, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: So, there are a lot of moving parts in that question, Joy, but, essentially, the state of Texas has gone to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. And they will ask a three-judge panel in that court to rule a different way.

They will ask that court to go ahead and put the statute back in operation to remove Judge Pitman`s stay. Either they will win or they will lose their. It`s worth noting that only the Supreme Court can overrule Roe vs. Wade -- excuse me -- and the Fifth Circuit panel is obligated to follow Roe vs. Wade, which suggests that they should keep Judge Pitman`s stay in place if they follow the law.

But, either way, we`re likely to end back up in front of the Supreme Court, where this case could easily be joined with Dobbs, the Mississippi case that the court will hear this term that`s a full frontal challenge to Roe vs. Wade.

REID: And that is the ultimate nightmare, Michelle, that I worry about. And I don`t have any faith that it will not end with Roe vs. Wade being gone.

So, if the worst-case scenario happens, I wonder how much of an earthquake that winds up being among American women. Your thoughts, because this really could be it.

MICHELLE GOLDBERG, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: You know, until the Supreme Court refused to stay this unbelievably outrageous Texas law the first time around, I had thought there was a chance that they might try to get Roe vs. Wade, instead of overturning it outright, because that`s a way that they can foreclose abortion rights, which are all but unavailable in many red states already, without creating exactly the kind of earthquake you`re talking about.

But their total disregard for precedent, their total kind of -- the total contempt with which they handled this whole thing, handing down this decision in the middle of the night to let this bill stand, makes me think that as much as some Supreme Court justices whine about their media coverage, which is kind of a new phenomenon, they actually don`t really care what most Americans think.

And so I would be actually very surprised if they don`t overturn Roe vs. Wade outright. And then I guess the question is what the American people, American women, Americans who believe in reproductive autonomy, what they do next.

So far, this issue hasn`t been getting people out into the streets like some other issues, I think, because people still find it really hard to believe that this could actually happen. But if it did happen, I would -- I would hope that that would be a flash point and a turning point in American politics.

REID: Yes.

Joyce, I mean, I think people have always thought of sort of Roe vs. Wade. You sort of think about the way Republicans think about it, that it`s like a car you don`t really want to catch, because having the issue makes their people vote. But once they actually do it, the real-world implications of having really angry female voters will be a backlash that they don`t want to deal with.

But I kind of feel like, Michelle, that they`re past that now, right? I mean, and if you look at the judges that Mitch McConnell engineered Donald Trump to sign into law, because that`s all he really wanted him for, to have his right hand or his tiny little fingers to sign them into law, let`s look at the Fifth Circuit, 17 judges on the 15th -- on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Twelve are Republican appointees. Only five are Democratic appointees, Trump appointed six of them, six of them. So this is a court that is sort of built to do the thing that far right has said this is their main voting thing. This is what they care about.

[19:25:06]

So, I wonder -- if we just assume Roe is going to be gone? What kind of judicial chaos might that unleash?

I wonder what next, you know, legally? Could women be arrested for having abortions? Like, how bad could this be?

VANCE: Losing Roe would change the entire landscape, Joy, because having Roe in place and protecting the rights of American people to obtain abortions prior to viability without any restriction has opened up a whole host of conduct, including, as you point out, the fact that the law can`t criminalize the conduct that the person who obtains the abortion engages in.

All of that could change if we lose Roe. And it`s worth noting that many of the Trump judicial appointees, when they were questioned in the Senate at their confirmation hearings, they would decline to agree to follow stare decisis, the binding notion of precedent in the American legal system, which says that all of the lower courts must follow Supreme Court cases and that even the Supreme Court honors long-standing precedent and doesn`t reverse it unless there are good, solid reasons to do that.

The example that was used in many of those confirmations was Brown vs. Board of Education, where you had this remarkable site of federal judicial nominees who refused to say that they believe that Brown was properly decided.

And so now that opens up the notion that, if Roe vs. Wade is fair game, what else? What else among our time-honored rights or perhaps even some of our newer rights might be vulnerable to a court that no longer holds these values in the same sort of sense that prior courts have?

REID: And I fear, Michelle, that the next is Brown. It`s being able to -- they also have a case about whether or not religious schools can get federal funding.

See more here:
Transcript: The ReidOut, 10/7/21 - MSNBC