Claire McCaskill (5:26)

Well, I think, you know what we're.

Mary McCord (5:28)

Going to start seeing now. You know, the Trump administration has a lot of wins in the emergency docket and now we're getting substitutes rulings by higher courts of appeals, not just the district courts. And that's no shade on the district court judges. They're doing a fantastic job. But the, you know, we're getting three judge panels ruling against Donald Trump. And it shows that the Strategy of do what you want without worrying about whether it's lawful or supported by the facts is going to eventually come around and result in some of these types of decisions. And, you know, it was exposed to all of us, the efforts that were made to try to get an intelligence assessment that would actually back up the President's factual findings in that proclamation. And that was story enough and a big enough deal. This is a really big deal. Here we have in a 2 to 1 opinion out of the conservative 5th Circuit with a conservative George W. Bush appointee writing for the majority taking issue, you know, interpreting the Alien Enemies act and saying, even if we accept the president's factual findings in the proclamation, even if we don't question those, those do not amount to an invas or predatory incursion. And certainly we're not in a situation of a declared war. And the Judge Southwick who wrote this opinion, concurred in by Judge Ramirez, carefully went back through history. It was a. It's a very originalist opinion, goes back to the meaning of different terms throughout history, seeks all kinds of sources to interpret what those terms mean and says, you know, even giving, again, even giving the President the benefit of doubt on and complete deference on the factual findings, that doesn't meet the criteria. This is a big deal. And I think this is something that, you know, if and when the administration does take this to the Supreme Court, and if they take it, it will be. It will be, you know, really putting them to the task if they want to find differently, because it's a very well reasoned, very thought out opinion by that court.

Nicole Wallace (7:33)

Michael, the piece that I never can get my brain around in trying to understand not just what they're doing, but why they're doing it, is that there is such enormous power. There's enormous power to seal the border, enormous power in the area of deportations. President Barack Obama, I think, deported more people than any administration before him. Why do you think the Trump administration turns to illegal justifications and explanations?

Mark Elias (8:10)

Yeah, and don't forget, they also control Congress. So to the extent they needed new legal authority, they actually control the branch of government that would give it to them in a heartbeat. Donald Trump resorts to illegal behavior for the same reason that Willie Sutton robbed banks, because that is where the power is. Donald Trump does not want to operate within the law because he thinks the law is for suckers. He thinks the Constitution is just a bunch of faded ink on old documents. He aspires to be Vladimir Putin. He aspires to be Kim Jong Un, someone who operates outside the law by design, by struts, his power by showing that the law doesn't apply to him. And that's why these court rulings are so important and they're why they are so unnerving to him. Because the fact is Donald Trump has now lost 130plus cases in district and court of appeals and even a few in the Supreme Court around the country. And that is a constant reminder to him that he is not all powerful and that at least the courts, if not the Republicans in Congress, will hold him accountable. There are only three things, Nicole, right now that he cares a lot about. One is deploying the military, and as you just point out, he just lost this very important case in the fifth Circuit. The second is to attack free and fair elections and he has been losing those lawsuits as well. And then the third is the Epstein files. And today he is suffering some real setbacks there. And all three of those operate as constraints and reminders to him of the constraints on his power. And it is important that the courts back up all three.

Nicole Wallace (9:53)

Claire McCaskill A lot of the story of the second Trump presidency is about the ways in which it differs from the first one, because comparing him to anyone normal is, is, is essentially pointless. Comparing his immigration conduct to the first one is almost equally pointless because you could argue in the first term that there were people with respect for the rule of law, sort of, I guess, up to the point where they started carrying out child separation, which was ruled by a Republican appointed judge as child abuse. But the policies are so flagrantly designed around cruelty. They are operationalized to terrorize and they also happen to be politically unpopular. Donald Trump has some of his lowest approval ratings around immigration and I believe it's why immigration is now wrapped up in lies about crime. What is the best way to push back for the Democratic Party?

Claire McCaskill (10:55)

Well, first of all, there's a couple of things I do think it's important to remember that Trump ran on deporting people, but he always talked about it in the context of deporting criminals, rapists and murderers and drug dealers. And what America is finding out is that's not what he's doing. He is trying to reach a number quota forced upon him by the guy who I think has in some ways more power than Donald Trump, and that is Stephen Miller. Stephen Miller has set a number quota and that's what Tom Holman is doing. He is trying to get X number of bodies on planes. Don't care where, don't care whether you're trying to go to court and legally find a way to stay in this country. Doesn't matter that you're trying to play by the rules, even if you might have come across the border without legal documentation. He just wants to get people out of the country, a certain number, and that's not popular and it's not going to be popular. And I think I really want to underline one of the points that Mary made. I mean, people come up to me in airports and grocery stores and wherever I go and they grab my arm and they go, are we going to be okay? And I tell them I believe the courts will hold. I believe the courts will hold because clearly Congress is failing. They've given up their power. The Republicans in Congress have given up their power. And Donald Trump has twisted the Constitution and statutory language to the point it's a unrecognizable. So now the ball's in Robert's Court. And what Mary emphasized in this opinion, I think this judge was very particular about the way he wrote this opinion, saying there was no war here, there was no invasion. In that he did originalist opinion. He talked about the language and the history and the context. And if you remember, that is what the court held their hat on in the gun case. You know that Clarence Thomas wants to talk about the original meaning of the words. Well, he is now presenting them with an opinion that's going to be very hard for them to wiggle around. And so Roberts is worried about his legacy. Well, he's got a chance here. He's got a chance to stand up and say, no, we're not going to let the president declare a military emergency when there isn't one.

Nicole Wallace (13:22)

Mary, Speaking of legal defeats, Donald Trump in the last hour had a big one around something that he seems to care a whole lot about, and that's his retribution campaign against Harvard University. Let me read you this. Just breaking in the New York Times, quote, harvard University won a crucial legal victory in its clash with the Trump administration Wednesday when a federal judge said that the government had broken the law by freezing billions of dollars in research funds in the name of combating anti Semitism. The ruling may not be the final word on the matter, but the decision by Judge Allison burroughs of the U.S. district Court in Boston was at the very least an interim rebuff of the Trump administration's campaign to remake elite higher education by force. If you're it's been reported by the New York Times as well that Harvard is in sort of end stage negotiations with the Trump administration to pay massive amounts of money to freeze up that research funding. If you're advising Harvard University legally, would you advise against making a deal if the freezing of the funds, which is what they're trying to undo, was just deemed illegal?

Mary McCord (14:29)

Well, with the caveat that with this opinion having just come out, I have not gotten a chance to read it yet. But I was disappointed when they even entered in those negotiations because I thought they did have such a very strong case. And it was good that Harvard took this to court. You know, other universities have caged, not all of them have stood up to the Trump administration, just like some law firms caved and those who stood up won. Right. And that's what we're seeing here. So I would need to analyze more this, this particular opinion. But, you know, they've got a winning hand here. And so I don't totally understand. I mean, I guess that was sort of like their backstop. Right. You know, while this litigation is going on, it's going to take a little bit of time. And we, we, you know, maybe we need to enter into some sort of arrangement to protect ourselves going forward and in case there's a bad judgment. And I definitely think they'll be very conversations, Nicole, about what now, what to do now. They certainly don't want to be accused of sort of bad faith and negotiating and then pulling out at the end stage. And I don't know exactly what stage they're in, but, you know, they won here, and it appears they won pretty big. Just like the law firms who challenged the blacklisting, they won and they won big. And it just shows there is real power to standing up against unconstitutional actions and actions that violate congressional statutes. That's what we should be doing, and that's what lots of people are doing, and lots of people who are doing it are winning.

Nicole Wallace (15:59)

I mean, Mark Elias, I would say all of the people that are doing it are winning. And so I want to ask you about the people that aren't doing it. I believe the law firms that are fighting the illegal executive orders are batting 1000. None of them have lost. And I believe this is the only university, to Mary McCord's point, that went to court. And I just want to read a little bit more of what the judge is saying from the Times. Quote, Judge Burrow's ruling came after both the government and the university asked her to issue what is known as summary judgment, a ruling on the case's claims without a trial. Instead, the judge relied on voluminous filings, a select batch of evidence, and oral arguments in her Boston courtroom on July 21 to reach a decision. She had appeared immensely skeptical of the government's position that day, but said that she had not prejudged the case. I mean, why is anyone doing deals that have almost all been rendered illegal in a court of law?

Mark Elias (16:59)

Yeah, I think we need to distinguish between those that are being extorted and those which are paying bribes, those which are capitulating and those that are collaborating. And, you know, I think it is fair to say that anyone who stands up against Donald Trump's extortion wins. The law firms that have stood up all won. The media companies that have stood up, as few as they've been, they've all won the universities. Now, Harvard University has won. The question is for the rest, are they capitulating or are they collaborating? I mean, some of the law firms, to be clear, they weren't even sued. They went to Donald Trump proactively and said, we want to affirmatively make a deal to put free legal services at your disposal. Some of the media entities, their billionaire owners showed up with checks they weren't asked for. They just showed up and said, here, here is a check. And so I have sort of grown weary of the idea that the large institutions are always the victims here. Sometimes they are just collaborators. They are in business to make a deal and find ways to put money in the pockets of Donald Trump, his ilk and his family and his friends. And they are doing it for their own selfish reasons. And so it is great to see the law firms that stand up stand up. It is great to see the businesses stand up, that stand up. It is great to see the media corporations and the universities that are standing up against him stand up against him. They will all win. But my question is for the rest of them, are you just such bad businessmen and cowards that you are capitulating or are you actually worse than that? You are actually trying to curry favor with this administration to get better deals than your competitors.

Nicole Wallace (18:47)

It's really, it's mind boggling. Harry McCord, thank you for sifting through us. I'm sorry for the breaking story. We'll let you read the opinion and we'll come back and talk about it some more. Mark and Claire, stick around a little bit longer. When we come back, Donald Trump's attempt to rig the midterm election is gaining a little bit more momentum today. Following Texas's lead, another state today began to the process to redraw their congressional maps to help Donald Trump. It's all because Republicans realize one crucial flashing red light. Politically, their policies are not popular with the electorate. We'll bring you that story next. Also ahead, we'll talk to Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett of the House Oversight Committee as the White House goes to war with anyone in Congress, Democrat or Republican, who wants the Trump administration to release the Jeffrey Epstein files and perhaps the most dangerous decision on vaccines we have ever seen. Imagine if all vaccine mandates were banned, even those for kids in school. It happened today. We'll tell you about it later. Deadline White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere.

Commercial Announcer (19:56)

Your new beginning starts now. Dr. Horton has new construction homes available in Ellensburg and throughout the greater Seattle area. With spacious floor plans, flexible living spaces and home technology packages, you can enjoy more cozy moments and sweet memories in your beautiful new home. With new home communities opening in Ellensburg and throughout the Seattle area, Dr. Horton has the ideal home for you. Learn more at Dr. Horton.com Dr. Horton, America's builder and equal Housing Opportunity Builder.

Mark Elias (20:27)

Businesses that are selling through the roof like Untuck it make selling and for shoppers buying simple with Shopify home of the number one checkout on the planet. And with shop Pay, you can boost conversions up to 50%. Businesses that sell more sell on Shopify. Upgrade your business and get the same checkout Untuck it uses. Sign up for your $1 per month trial period at shopify.com podcastfree all lowercase go to shopify.com podcastfree to upgrade your selling today.

Nicole Wallace (20:56)

I think that you have to have faith that in the end it'll all be okay. That no matter who wins a presidential election, we will live in a democracy, that the First Amendment will govern what journalists can say and do. The Constitution will protect the rights of everybody, if you can agree that most people want those things. Our show is about trying to bend the arc toward that end result deadline.

Commercial Announcer (21:19)

White House with Nicole Wallace, weekdays from 4 to 6pm Eastern on MSNBC.

Nicole Wallace (21:27)

Donald Trump's political desperation is showing. It is an effort to counter his own poor approval ratings and unpopular policies. He is instead trying to rig the outcome of next year's midterm elections. It began in Texas, but last week the Republican governor there signed newer, redder congressional maps into law following a pressure campaign from the White House from Donald Trump himself. Republicans in the Midwest, too, are now giving in to Trump's demands. Missouri's Republican supermajority began the process today of redrawing their state maps to favor themselves ahead of the midterms. And that's despite the broad unpopularity redistricting receives among voters. Republicans in Missouri already hold a 62 margin. The new map could push out Democratic Congressman Emanuel Cleaver, who represents part of Kansas City and has this to say. Quote, roughly 40% of Missourians cast their ballots for Democratic candidates last year. In attempting to dismantle the 5th district district, state lawmakers would be working to drown out Missouri voices in favor of a single man a thousand miles away. Mark and Claire are here. Claire, your thoughts?

Claire McCaskill (22:38)

Yeah. This is heartbreaking for me because it's brutal for Kansas City. You know, Missouri had a lot of Democratic statewide office holders, and obviously I was honored to be one of those for a number of years. And they're still between 40 and 45%, depending on what election you're looking at, that are voting for Democratic candidates in Missouri. And what they're going to do is they're going to make this a 71 state. And that's not fair to Missourians and it's certainly not fair to black Missourians. And I really and Mark can speak to this. But there's an evil that happened last year called the Alexander versus South Carolina case. And in that case, what the Supreme Court said is you cannot gerrymander on racial basis, but you can gerrymander for political reasons. And if you. Therefore, you have to prove it's racial, even if you can show it's political. So what that means is they can carve up Kansas City. They can carve up all of the black Americans that live in Kansas City into three separate districts and make those districts go so far and so thinly out throughout Missouri that they pick up so many Republican votes that those voices are, in fact, drowned out. Manuel Cleaver has been the congressman there for. He was a mayor before that. He's a wonderful minister and has been a great congressman for that area. The business community in Kansas City is upset. The people that live in Kansas City are very upset. But the Republicans in Missouri don't care. And keep in mind that Kansas City is a crown jewel of our state, along with St. Louis. The two areas that vote for a lot of Democrats are the economic engines of the state. They provide most of the economic output in this state, most of the job creation, to say nothing of a lot of the pride that Missourians have for institutions that are located in those two cities. So it is terrible what they're doing. I have to believe there'll be a backlash. I do think that voters are going to pay attention to this, and I hope we get good candidates to run against some of these people that are so cocky, they think 40% of Missourians not going to notice.

Nicole Wallace (24:52)

Marco Lias how do you fight this?

Mark Elias (24:56)

We're going to sue Missouri. I mean, you know, I told Texas that if they did what they did in Texas, they were going to get sued. They finished their map in the dead of the night at 2am by 8am the next morning, my law firm had filed a lawsuit. And I've told the Republicans in Missouri like I've told them in Florida, like I've told them in Indiana, if they break the law by, by illegally gerrymandering, they're, they're going to get sued. And that is a promise. And by the way, for the Republicans in Missouri, go look up my name. Last time I appeared in your state supreme Court, I struck down your ID law. So, you know, there's no promises that we're going to win every case, but we win a lot more than we lose and we're going to stand up to these bullies.

Nicole Wallace (25:34)

Mark, how many states are going to follow Texas?

Mark Elias (25:40)

So here's the thing is there's proud maga, there's scared maga. So proud MAGA states like Texas there, they're all in, you know, Missouri, the governor there, proud Maga, he's all in. Ron DeSantis is going to follow suit, I believe, because he's in that camp. Then you get to the scared MAGA states and you know, that's Indian and they're, I think, gonna probably cave New Hampshire, you know, Kelly Ayotte, the governor there, says she's not going to. We'll wait and see where, what, what she does. And then I'm really worried that you could start to see some of the states in the Deep south that have just completely abandoned their, their fealty to federal law and the Voting Rights Act. You could see some, some of them starting to double back. I mean, we already sued Alabama and created a second black opportunity district there and the same in Louisiana. But, you know, Louisiana is now saying in the case in the Supreme Court that they no longer stand by the Voting Rights Act. And so, you know, we'll see what happens as, as this, as this all roils through, you know, whether you find more Republican governors and Republican legislatures that think there's good politics in standing up to discriminate against black voters. But again, what I can promise them is that anyone, any Republican governor or Republican legislator that violates the federal Constitution, violates federal law, or violates their own state constitution or state limits on reditioning is going to get sued. And we're going to litig aggressively. I can't promise that we're going to win every case, but we're going to win more than we lose. And by the way, Senator McCaskill, I've litigated four cases. I've argued four cases in the U.S. supreme Court. All were racial gerrymandering cases, and I won all four.

Nicole Wallace (27:14)

So take that.

Claire McCaskill (27:15)

Okay. There you go. And I'm really, really glad. I mean, Mark, if anybody can do it, Mark Elias can. It just the Alexander case sent a cold chill down my spine because it did equate political gerrymandering with racial gerrymandering mandering, which is very dangerous for our country in terms of our history and how hard we fought to make sure that everybody has a voice in their government.

Nicole Wallace (27:42)

Mark Elias, before you go, should we, should we tout our you turn the tables on me and ask me questions on this week's Democracy Docket podcast? Where do people find that?

Mark Elias (27:53)

Yeah, I had for everyone, I had a chance to interview Nicole Wallace on my Democracy Docket podcast. I've had Senator McCaskill on in the past. But Nicole and I had a great conversation. And you will learn all about what she does. Right, and what the rest of us can learn.

Nicole Wallace (28:11)

No, no, it was, it's on all.

Mark Elias (28:12)

The places you'd find it and on YouTube.

Nicole Wallace (28:14)

And you said she cussed.

Claire McCaskill (28:18)

I want to know if she cussed. Did she cuss?

Nicole Wallace (28:20)

I don't think she.

Mark Elias (28:21)

No, you didn't.

Nicole Wallace (28:22)

I think I remember. I was adequately caffeinated. There might be some dogs barking in the background, though, which always happens.

Claire McCaskill (28:29)

There you go. There you go.

Nicole Wallace (28:32)

Margaret Lyes, thank you for your time today and thank you for having me on the podcast. Claire stays with me for the rest of the hour. When we come back, one of the House Democrats leading the charge for transparency and to force the Justice Department to release the Jeffrey Epstein files. Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett will be our next guest on where that affects and what she makes of Donald Trump's attempts to keep them hidden. That's next.

Commercial Announcer (28:59)

Sometimes an identity threat is a ring of professional hackers. And sometimes it's an overworked accountant who forgot to encrypt their connection while sending bank details.

Dr. Ven Gupta (29:08)

I need a coffee.

Commercial Announcer (29:09)

And you need Lifelock because your info is in endless places. It only takes one mistake to expose you to identity theft. LifeLock monitors hundreds of millions of data points a second. If your identity is stolen, we'll fix it, guaranteed, or your money back. Save up to 40% your first year@lifelock.com specialoffer terms apply.

Commercial Announcer (29:29)

Saturday, October 11th from New York City, it's MSNBC Live 25. Join your favorite MSNBC hosts Rachel Maddow, Joe Scarborough, Mika Bruszinski, Nicole Wallace, Ari Melber, Alicia Menendez, Simone Sanders Townsend, Michael Steele, Chris Haynes, jen Psaki, Lawrence O', Donnell, Stephanie Rule and more. Visit msnbc.comlive25 to buy your tickets today. Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts for early access, ad free listening and bonus content to all of MSNBC's original podcasts, including the chart topping series the Best People with Nicole Wallace. Why Is this Happening? Main justice and more. Plus new episodes of all your favorite MSNBC shows ad free and ad free listening to all of Rachel Maddow's original series, Ultra Bagman and Deja News. Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

Nicole Wallace (30:31)

Congressman Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna are barreling forward to force a vote demanding the Trump Department of Justice to release all Epstein files. It's a move supporting by the victims of Jeffrey Epstein we heard from earlier today the White House is now stepping up its resistance, a pressure campaign against House Republicans to not sign on to the discharge petition. The thing that makes this go forward from that bipartisan duo, one White House official telling NBC News this, quote, helping Thomas Massie and liberal Democrats while the DOJ is fully supporting a more comprehensive file release effort from the Oversight Committee would be viewed as a very hostile act to the administration, end quote. Republican Congressman Thomas Massie fired back at the White House this morning. Here's what he had to say in response. I haven't really talked to a lot of people.

Mark Elias (31:25)

I do find it interesting that the three co sponsors are women.

Dr. Ven Gupta (31:29)

Maybe they have immunity from the threats.

Commercial Announcer (31:32)

From the White House.

Nicole Wallace (31:33)

I do think it's disgusting that the.

Dr. Ven Gupta (31:35)

White House House has called their co sponsorship a hostile act now.

Mark Elias (31:40)

So you have the White House telling.

Commercial Announcer (31:41)

Women who are trying to help women.

Dr. Ven Gupta (31:45)

Who'Ve been sexually exploited that that's somehow a hostile act.

Nicole Wallace (31:50)

Joining our coverage, Democratic Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett from Texas. She serves on the House Oversight Committee which is investigating the Epstein case. Claire is still with us as well. Congresswoman, thank you for being here and tell us where things stand.

Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett (32:08)

Yeah, I mean clearly the White House, they are the hostile actors. Whether we're talking about the Epstein files and them not coming out or whether we're talking about him unlawfully going into various minority controlled cities and honestly, the list goes on so we know where the hostility is coming from. I will have to tell you that I respect Thomas Massie. Clearly we don't agree on a lot, but where we can find agreement, we do. And the reason that I respect him is because he always shows you who he is. He is what I would consider to be a traditional conservative. He believes in transparency. He doesn't believe in whatever Trump tells him to believe. He believes in things like fiscal conservatism. He knows who he is and he never backs down. And to have this administration try to play with us and act like the DOJ is complying with oversight. To be clear, we were able to secure a subpoena to get those records from the Department of Justice within the Oversight Committee. And guess what? We still don't have them. Right. Like they gave us an itty bitty amount. They gave us maybe 3% of the documentation. And they know that they have comer under their thumb and that comer won't necessarily press. So they don't want this full House vote. But I believe that they are going to get the signatures and then the ball will be in the Speaker's court.

Nicole Wallace (33:31)

What do you think they're covering up?

Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett (33:36)

Listen, I mean, now, I've never been a conspiracy theorist ever in my life. Okay, no silver tin hat here. Okay, sis? But I'm going to tell you that as I sat and listened to these women, as someone who's been in courtrooms and frankly has reviewed my fair share of discovery and cases because I have represented on the defense side people accused of similar acts, this is next level. The levels to this is absolutely insane. And we're not talking about the things that he's espousing to clean our cities of these low level criminals. We are talking about. For instance, let me tell you, there was a story of. I'll try to make it quick. There was a story of a young lady who ended up encountering Epstein as he was incarcerated in 2008 in Florida because he set up a sham company and he was able to then be on work release to his sham company. And while on work release, meaning that he was absolutely being monitored, but he wasn't. He was still abusing women. That is the level. We're talking about them doing fake immigration documents and getting girls from Russia, from Ukraine. Obviously we knew that there were international implications. They also talked about Israel and this like they implicate. It's like the banks, the accountants, the lawyers, like, it is insane. And so I personally think this is about the people that made sure that they could have puppets like Trump in power that he is trying to cover.

Nicole Wallace (35:21)

For Congresswoman, what questions do you have for Alex Acosta, who does this extraordinary sweetheart deal that I think puts in motion the extraordinary circumstances around that work release where I never heard this before, but he's allowed to continue to abuse women.

Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett (35:41)

So here's the thing. I'm actually really happy that that's not going to be a normal committee hearing because as you know, we only get five minutes and for the most part, it's a dog and pony show. It's going to be behind closed doors, a transcribed interview. I would have preferred an actual deposition where perjury would be clearly on the table if for some reason he was not truthful and forthcoming. And we were able to back that up as we go through this process of interviewing various witnesses. So, first of all, I want to know. I will be very methodical and be a real lawyer, right? To the extent that I want to know who I was working with you, I want to know what their jobs were. And the reason that I'm going to need that foundational information is so that we can then go and dig and talk to those people as well. It's a puzzle piece when you are to build a case. Right. And so we want to make sure we get all the pieces to the puzzle. I also really want to seek clarification on whether or not this is something that he initiated or not. I also want answers to questions about the fact that it was clear that he violated federal law. That was made clear in the lawsuit that the survivors ended up filing because he failed to notify them. The timeline is very interesting. What they ended up doing is saying, you know what? They signed off on the no pros agreement, the no pros agreement, right, to not prosecute him. And then after that is when they decided that they would talk to the victims and say, hey, just wanted to let you know your case is still moving along. We'll let you know when something's happening. Right. This was a clear cover up. And so I want to really dig into his thought process and find out if this is something that, that he consistently did and why.

Nicole Wallace (37:34)

Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett, thank you so much for your role in all this and for joining us to talk about it. To be continued. When we come back, the dangers facing all of us right now in the area of public health now that the state of Florida is banning all vaccine mandates. We'll bring you that story next. Earlier this afternoon, to raucous applause, Florida's surgeon general made an alarming new announcement. That state will now work to eliminate vaccine mandates Entirely. It is a controversial decision bound to have an enormous impact on public school students and their families who until today were required to be current on their vaccinations. But that is no more. Apparently in that press conference this afternoon, Florida's surgeon general framed the decision as one of personal liberty, going so far as to say this about vaccine. Man mandates.

Mark Elias (38:31)

Every last one of them is wrong.

Commercial Announcer (38:33)

And drips with disdain and slavery.

Mark Elias (38:40)

Your body is a gift from God. What you put into your body.

Nicole Wallace (38:47)

What.

Mark Elias (38:47)

You put into your body is because of your relationship with your body and your God.

Commercial Announcer (38:52)

I don't have that right.

Mark Elias (38:54)

Government, government does not have that right.

Commercial Announcer (38:58)

They want you to believe they have that right.

Mark Elias (39:00)

And unfortunately they've been successful.

Nicole Wallace (39:05)

Now do women. Joining our conversation is global health policy expert and MSNBC medical contributor Dr. Ven Gupta. Claire McCaskill's here as well. I mean, Dr. Gupta, what's amazing is that worldview doesn't extend to women's prerogatives. We can have that conversation another day. But the science around vaccines, vaccines isn't just about an individual. It is about keeping a community safe. It is about protecting children and the most vulnerable from diseases that used to kill people and no longer do because we know how to protect. What are your thoughts today?

Dr. Ven Gupta (39:43)

Yeah, Nicole, you know, this is just to be clear, this is a performative political stunt. And what we've seen and they've made this possible, Ladapo and Desantis is non medical exemptions in the state of Florida have only been increasing. So this is to do this really is just this all performance. There's really no substance to it. But where the rubber meets the road is for families that don't want their children to be in unsafe environments. And you know, I think it's important to call out. There is strong bipartisan support, Nicole, to the tune of 80% based on recent polling data, broad polling data, that Americans across the political spectrum want vaccines. Requirements for children that go to schools from daycare on up for a reason. And that reason, let's take the case of tetanus. It's a five shot series that covers for diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus. People may know pertussis because it's causes whooping cough, which is on the rise for reasons that wouldn't surprise folks, people are exempting out of it. But it's five shot series and that last shot ends up happening somewhere between the ages of 4 and 6. That means your child is not fully protected until the ages of 4 and 6. And so a breakthrough infection could, could occur. And essentially parents that may not have any other option to call other than to send their kids to these elementary schools or daycares because they're working now are going to be facing a reality where their kids are going to be exposed to more and more children unvaccinated, posing a risk not to only those children, but to the parents of children that are actually trying to go through the series.

Nicole Wallace (41:19)

It's unbelievable. Claire? Yeah.

Claire McCaskill (41:23)

Dr. Gupta, talk to me about what the pediatricians in this country are thinking right now. I mean, these are men and women who have dedicated their lives to the care of children. And I'm actually old enough to remember when we would lose up to 500 children a year die from complications from measles before the vaccine became widely accepted and adopted through medical research. What are the pediatricians doing? Are they collectively trying to do so something. Do you think that individually they are doing everything in their power to convince the parents that they are serving that vaccines are protecting their child, not harming their child? I can't imagine if I were a pediatrician how it would feel today to have this man stand up there with a doctor, a medical doctor, making the kinds of statements he's made about vaccines. It's just unbelievable to me.

Nicole Wallace (42:20)

Me.

Dr. Ven Gupta (42:22)

Senator McCaskill, you know, I have the good fortune of being married to a pediatrician. Her and I have this conversation a lot and I'm very close to the current leadership at the American Academy of Pediatrics. Just had a conversation with Dr. Susan Presley over the weekend, current president, who has been very outspoken. I think the AAP has really met this moment where they're. They, you know, typically medical societies are not as outspoken as what we're seeing now. And they are, they are meeting every moment. But it's to say that they represent pediatricians. To answer your question in every community across the country and to restate it, the vast majority, Claire, 80% of Americans want these vaccine requirements to send their children to safe environments at school because those kids then come back perhaps into multi generational households. Maybe mom or dad is sick. There is risks to sending a kid that's still getting going through a series for MMR for measles, mumps and rubella or tetanus. This if they're not fully vaccinated, they might get exposed and test positive. Remember, we went through this whole thing for Covid and bring it back home. Nobody wants this, certainly not the pediatricians, but they're speaking with one voice. And I'll just plug it here. Healthy children.org I've been talking closely to their leadership. They've been trying to get this URL out for people across the country. Nicole and Claire, it's produced by the American Academy of Pediatrics. It's one stop shop for all information for all the families out there to get evidence based, easily navigable information on vaccines. Highly encourage people to go there.

Nicole Wallace (43:54)

Let's keep this conversation going, Dr. Gupta, because I think people are going to be hungering for science backed resources and information about how to keep their kids and families safe. Thank you for joining us on this today. Claire McCaskill, thank you for spending the hour with us. When we come back, a victory to tell you about for a Democratic member of Congress who was arrested for standing up to I and was targeted by Republicans. We'll bring you that story next. A House Democrat today avoided censure with the help of some Republican colleagues. Congresswoman LaMonica McIver faced a censure motion over her clash with officers in May outside an ICE detention facility in Newark. McIver and colleagues say they were attempting to exercise their oversight authority. Five Republican members defected and joined all of the Democrats Democrats to kill the resolution. Two other Republicans voted present. This is the second time Republican Clay Higgins has attempted to censure McIver. Here's what she had to say in response. Quote, instead of making life any better for the people he represents, he's seeking to punish me for doing what he and his caucus are too cowardly to conduct real oversight, stand up to this administration and do our job. If House Republicans think they can make me run scared, they are wrong. When we come back, Ken Burns on the American president who made the peaceful transfer of power in this country a reality and whose rejection of the all out pursuit of power stands in stark contrast to the current occupant of the White House. We'll show you that next. Ronald Reagan once famously called America's tradition of a peaceful transfer of power, quote, nothing less than a mere. My guest on this week's episode of the Best People, filmmaker Ken Burns gave credit to the man whose selfless act made that uniquely American miracle a reality, President George Washington.

Dr. Ven Gupta (45:54)

I can tell you right now who the most important person is. George Washington. We don't have a country without him. If he'd said, look, I'm thinking of becoming emperor, everybody would have gone, okay, the general, you know, the Napoleon, and he gave it up, resigned his military commission and then is unanimously elected president of the United States and leaves after two terms. And even George III said then he's the greatest character of the age because he was. And this is our example, our example of not the pursuit of power but the understanding that the highest office is really still citizen and that the trappings of power have no place in the people's government.

Nicole Wallace (46:40)

This conversation was chicken soup for my soul. You can listen to Ken Burns. It's available on YouTube. Or you can download the conversation wherever you get your podcasts. Thank you for letting us into your homes today. We are grateful.

Commercial Announcer (46:53)

Sometimes an identity threat is a ring of professional hackers, and sometimes it's an overworked accountant who forgot to encrypt their connection while sending bank details.

Nicole Wallace (47:02)

I need a coffee.

Commercial Announcer (47:03)

And you need Lifelock because your info is in endless places. Takes one mistake to expose you to identity theft. LifeLock monitors hundreds of millions of data points a second. If your identity is stolen, we'll fix it, guaranteed or your money back. Save up to 40% your first year@lifelock.com specialoffer terms apply.