← The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell
The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell
Lawrence: House Republican says we're not 'little b----es.’ Dem calls out GOP's Trump bill mistake.
00:54:10
Tonight on The Last Word: House Republicans scramble to advance Donald Trump’s budget bill. And researchers say USAID cuts could lead to 14 million deaths over the next five years. Rep. Brendan Boyle, Norm Ornstein, Rep. Jamie Raskin, and Dr. Atul Gawande join Lawrence O’Donnell.
Loading summary
Transcript82 lines
- [00:01]
MSNBC Announcer
Stay connected with the MSNBC app bringing you breaking news and analysis anytime, anywhere.
- [00:07]
All the stories that we're covering are live and happening as we speak.
- [00:11]
Watch your favorite shows live.
- [00:13]
What's happening right now is a hostile takeover of the US Government.
- [00:17]
Read live blogs and in depth essays and listen to coverage as it unfolds. Go beyond the what to understand the why. Download the app now@msnbc.com app 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 Maddows original series, Ultra Bagman and Deja News. Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.
- [01:01]
Lawrence O'Donnell
It Has a Mistake in it those were the words spoken on the floor of the House of Representatives today at 11:10am that shocked every Republican member of the House of Representatives. They all know that the real leading expert on House rules is Democrat Jim McGovern, the Democratic leader of the House Rules Committee. They know that the Republican chair of the House Rules Committee, Virginia Fox, is completely and permanently incompetent. Always has been, always will be, as is her staff. And so the way in over his head, Republican speaker of the House Mike Johnson learned From Democrat Jim McGovern on the floor today at 11:10am that what Speaker Johnson brought to the floor of the House to vote on had a mistake in it. Unlike the Senate, the House of Representatives creates a they have a vote that creates a rule for each piece of legislation that passes through the House of Representatives. And it's a different rule for each one. They all have very similar elements in the Senate. There are the standing rules of the Senate. They're written down and they don't change. But the House Rules Committee, controlled by the party in power, literally writes a rule that is the guideline for how that particular bill will be handled on the floor of the House of Representatives. And that rule always says, for example, that there will be no amendments allowed on the House floor. That's why you only see amendments on the Senate floor, never on the House floor. But the incompetent Republicans did such a bad job of writing that very simple one paragraph rule. The Jim McGovern stopped everything in the House of Representatives today by announcing to the House it has a mistake in it. We've never seen anything like that in the House of Representatives. Nothing that stupid in the House of Representatives. And for the next 11 hours, the Republican House of Representatives was paralyzed by that Republican mistake. Usually in the House of Representatives, no one in the Republican Party ever listens to anything anyone in the Democratic Party says on the House floor. But this time, this time, the whole House heard What Congressman Jim McGovern said when he started a drama like we have never seen before in the House of Representatives. With these words, I want to alert.
- [03:39]
Jim McGovern
All members to something about this rule. It has a mistake in it. Republicans have rushed this process from the very beginning to meet Trump's official July 4 deadline. And this rule is no exception. We found an error in the rule at 2am this morning after the Rules Committee reported the rule.
- [03:54]
Lawrence O'Donnell
By reported the rule, Jim McGovern means after the Republicans on the Rules Committee voted for the rule and sent the rule to the floor of the House for a vote by the House. And here is the mistake.
- [04:09]
Jim McGovern
This is going to sound a little in the weeds, but they forgot to do something called considering the previous question as ordered on their big ugly bill. Let me put that in English. What that means is they won't have an escape hatch once they start debate on this bill. So if they start it and they realize they don't have the vote, they still have to take the embarrassing vote.
- [04:29]
Lawrence O'Donnell
And that was shocking news to the dazed and confused Speaker Mike Johnson, who will never know half as much as Jim McGovern knows about how the House of Representatives actually works. And when Jim McGovern said that, we now know the Republicans did not have the votes. Mike Johnson didn't have the votes to pass his rule or his bill. Donald Trump didn't have the votes in the House of Representatives to pass his bill. And so there was panic in the Republican House and in the Trump White House.
- [05:06]
Jim McGovern
Now, I expect I'll try to fix this with an amendment, but I have a question for members. If this Republican leadership cannot get a one paragraph rule right, can we really trust them to get a 870 page bill right? Not only are we going to find things that were snuck into this bill, we're going to find massive mistakes that have unintended consequences for people and industries across this country. This whole process has been lousy and this rule is no exception.
- [05:34]
Lawrence O'Donnell
And then using the opening that Jim McGovern identified for the House, one by one, the Democrats used their right to go to the microphone and ask for an amendment to protect Medicaid and the nutrition assistance program. And the Republicans blocked every single attempt on the House floor today to save Medicaid and save, the nutrition assistance program that feeds poor children and for families everywhere in this country, in every one of those House members, districts. And then Jim McGovern said this.
- [06:12]
Jim McGovern
Mr. Speaker, over 100 Democratic members just asked to allow an amendment to protect Medicaid and snap, just to give us a vote. That's all we ask. And I will say we are here standing up for the American people, no matter where they live. And this is what it looks like to fight for the American people, to make sure that this administration and this Republican Congress doesn't rip away their health care and their food benefits. That is disgusting. And the gentlewoman from North Carolina's district alone, 142,000 of her constituents would lose some or all of their SNAP benefits. And five rural hospitals are at risk of closure. We're here to help people, not to screw them over.
- [06:56]
Lawrence O'Donnell
New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio Cortez said this.
- [07:01]
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
President Trump had issued some statements throughout this process saying and urging, insisting that this bill does not cut Medicaid. He's also said some things, you know, he says he doesn't think I'm too much of a smart person. And I'll tell you one thing. It doesn't take a smart person to know if you're being lied to. President Trump. You're either being lied to or you are lying to the American people. Because this bill represents, in the text of this bill, the largest and greatest loss of health care in American. 17 million Americans will lose their health care on this bill. Not undocumented people, not, quote, unquote, the disgusting term illegal. But 17 million Americans will have their health care cut from this bill on this point of tax on tips. As one of the only people in this body who has lived off of tips, I want to tell you a little bit about the scam of that text, a little bit of the fine print there. The cap ON that is $25,000 while you're jacking up taxes on people who make less than $50,000 across the United States while taking away their snap, while taking away their Medicaid, while taking. Kicking them off of the ACA and their health care extensions. So if you're at home and you're living off tips, you do the math. Is that worth it to you? Losing all your health care, not able to feed your babies, not being able to put a diaper on their bottom in exchange for what? This bill is a deal with the devil. It explodes our national debt. It militarizes our entire economy, and it strips away health care. And basic dignity of the American people For what? To give Elon Musk a tax break and billionaires the greedy taking of our nation. We cannot stand for it and we will not support it. You should be ashamed.
- [09:21]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Congressman Jamie Raskin, who will join us later in this hour, came up with a new frame on the Republican bill.
- [09:30]
Jamie Raskin
I found the preamble to this big ugly bill. We the billionaires in our king in order to deform and sicken our union, establish injustice, ensure domestic servility, weaken our people's defenses, undermine the general welfare and reserve to ourselves and our posterity staggering debt servitude for eternity. Do hereby instruct the Republicans in Congress to strip 17 million people of their health care, Increase co pays deductibles and premiums for everyone else, cut 42 million people off of nutritional assistance, increase the national debt by $4 trillion. Trash Renewable energy systems, increase our electric bills for the carbon Kings. All to weaken and destroy the Constitution of the people of these United States of America. Please include this preamble in the legislative record.
- [10:28]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Donald Trump met with 13 individual members of the House of Representatives today who were seen entering the White House. The New York Times describes the scene this way. A conga line of angsty Republican lawmakers filed through the West Wing on Wednesday, hemming and hawing about the big domestic policy bill that President Trump wants them to pass by Friday. They walked out with signed merchandise, photos in the Oval Office, and by some accounts a newfound appreciation for the bill targets all of a blunt force charm offensive waged with precision by the president. Mr. Trump knows how to make lowly lawmakers feel special. He sends them handwritten attaboys. He takes their phone calls at all hours of the day, even interrupting high level West Wing meetings so as not to miss them. He brings them them to Ultimate Fighting Championship fights and sits them ringside with his entourage. He invites them into the social world at Mar a Lago. All of which can feel incredibly heady for small time members of Congress. I think the Times might mean small minded members of Congress, one of the Republicans who has been objecting to the Medicaid cuts from the start insisted today, after completely giving up all of his objections to the bill. We're not a bunch of little bitches, okay? No one said you were. I mean, we've said negative things about what you're voting for and what you're willing to do, and many of us have said negative things about the cruelty that you're willing to inflict on people here and around the world. But Little bitches is your term, Congressman Derek Van Orden, not mine. Here is the full context of Derek Van Orden's breathtakingly pathetic little bitches self defense. The President of the United States didn't give us an assignment. We're not a bunch of little bitches around here, okay? I'm a member of Congress. I represent almost 800,000 Wisconsinites, okay? But every member of the House of Representatives represents approximately the same number of people. That's the idea of proportional representation, and it always has been. Congressman Van Orden does represent exactly one billionaire. Exactly one of those 800,000 people residing in his Wisconsin district is a billionaire. And that is the one person who has absolutely nothing to complain about in this legislation because Republicans have taken care of billionaires in this legislation as if they are an endangered species in the United States Senate Democrats offered an amendment to the bill that would have made the income tax on incomes only over $10 million exactly what that income tax was under President Clinton and under President Obama, 39.6%, two and a half percent higher than it will be under the Trump tax cuts. Donald Trump's going to give them a tax rate of 37%. And the Democrats said, how about 2.5% higher just for incomes over $10 million. The Democrats gave the Republicans in the Senate an opportunity to preserve every single tax cut in the bill in one vote, except for incomes over $10 million. The Democratic amendment would have restored the income tax on income over $10 million to 39.6%, which is exactly what it was for every year of the Clinton presidency when those billionaires were on their way to becoming billionaires because the economy was booming every single year of the Clinton presidency. And they were getting richer and richer every single day of the Clinton presidency with a 39.6 income tax rate on their even though in those days in the 1990s, they paid 2.5% more income tax than they will under Donald Trump. And Republicans in the Senate fought that amendment in the Senate and they sent that bill back to the House of Representatives with that full guaranteed protection for every single dollar of income over $10 million. There is no amount of money you can possibly earn that should ever be taxed above 37% under any possible scenario, according to Republicans, should never, ever be taxed the way income was taxed during the economic boom years under President Clinton and President Obama. Republican taxation religion says no, never. It can never be above 37. It can never be 39, even for $100 million or a billion dollars. Can't do it. And so the Republicans in the United States Senate cast a vote specifically to protect the highest level incomes this country has ever seen. The incomes of billionaires and the incomes of people who make more than $10 million a year. And not one Republican had any doubt about that. Congressman Derek Van Orden of Wisconsin, who represents exactly that one billionaire, gave that billionaire everything he could possibly give him in his representation of that billionaire. While he gave absolutely nothing to the 152,900 people in his district on Medicaid. He gave them nothing. And I don't know what you call members of Congress who do that, but Congressman Van Orden, if your term for that is little bitches, okay. But don't be surprised if your constituents call you something much worse than that. The Democrats today named names. They identified the names of some of the Republican House members who they believe they can defeat and remove from the House of Representatives in the next congressional election. Because of those Republican support for billionaires and their willingness to snatch health care away from 17 million people. And not one Democrat called any of those Republicans little bitches.
- [17:04]
Brendan Boyle
Why would anyone vote for this dangerous and extreme bill? Why would Rob Bresnahan vote for this bill? More than 30,000 people would lose access to their health care in his community in Pennsylvania. Almost 60,000 households could lose access to food assistance in his community at risk of going hungry. Why would Rob Bresnahan vote for this bill? Why would Scott Perry vote for this bill? Almost 25,000 people in his community would lose access to health care in his community in Pennsylvania. Almost 40,000 households would lose access to nutritional assistance. They're at risk of going hungry. Why would Scott Perry vote for this bill?
- [18:13]
Norm Ornstein
Why would David Valada vote vote for this bill? Over 65,000 people in his district will lose access to health care if this passes. 60,000 households will lose access to their food assistance and over 3,600 energy jobs will be lost. Just California 22. But why would young Kim in California 40 vote for this bill either? Over 31,000 people in her communities will lose their health care. And 15,000 households could lose access to food assistance. Why?
- [19:03]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Indeed.
- [19:04]
Norm Ornstein
But we've been told exactly where we stand. The vice president said these cuts are immaterial. Mitch McConnell says people will get over it. Joni Ernst reminded us we're all gonna die anyway. So at a time when most households are struggling to afford the basics, Republicans have a clear message for American families. You don't matter.
- [19:36]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Leading off our breaking news coverage of the House floor tonight is Democratic Congressman Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania. He's the top Democrat on the Budget Committee and a member of the powerful Ways and Means Committee. Joining us just off the House floor, Carson Boyle, you are our go to play by play analyst of the House floor. What exactly is the state of play right now? I'm looking at a vote total there that indicates the Republicans as of right now, with no time remaining on the clock, which can be left open forever, do not have the votes to pass this rule to get this started.
- [20:10]
Carson Boyle
Well, I used to do play by play for Notre Dame football in college. So this is a little bit of a different sort of play by Play. I'm about 10ft off the House floor right now. Just one more no vote from the Republicans would sink this rule. At least as of when I stepped out here a few minutes ago to talk with you, four Republicans had voted no on the rule as well as every single Democrat standing united voting no. And there are about 10 or so Republicans who have yet to vote. It seems to be mostly freedom caucus types with one or two very vulnerable members come next November. So look, as I said to you previously, I would not bet my bank account on this crowd to stay firm and to show a backbone. So I am nervous that they will fold at any minute. They're so deathly afraid of one tweet from Donald Trump. We already saw one of their leaders, Ralph Norman, who called this bill an abomination 48 hours ago, voted against it 24 hours ago. Right now he voted for it. So we shall see. It's pretty dramatic and could change at any minute here.
- [21:19]
Lawrence O'Donnell
So the reports we have of the four who are up there voting no. Four Republicans voting no. Two of them are from your state of Pennsylvania. We have Representative Andrew Clyde of Georgia. We have Victoria Spartz of Indiana. But we have Keith Self of Pennsylvania. We have Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania. Do you think your Pennsylvania Republican colleagues will hold in their no vote position? And if they don't, what does that do? What does this bill do to Pennsylvania?
- [21:49]
Carson Boyle
Yeah, well, quick clarification. Keith Self is a pretty conservative Republican from Texas, but the other one, Brian Fitzpatrick is actually my neighbor. He represents suburban Philadelphia, Bucks County, Pennsylvania. He's in a very 5050 seat. He is the Republican co lead of the self described problem solvers caucus. And it's interesting because his name had not really been much in the news as one who was a holdout on their side. So when he put his no vote up that really you could hear an audible gasp from the Democratic side on the House floor.
- [22:24]
Lawrence O'Donnell
So Thomas Massie is not listed as one of the four no votes. So he, we assume remains a no vote and he just hasn't voted yet. That would bring it to five no votes if he does. What's the mystery of Thomas Massie at the moment not being recorded as voting?
- [22:44]
Carson Boyle
You know, it is really interesting these Rand Paul in the Senate and Thomas Massie here in the House. We have some, you know, very cantankerous libertarian minded Republicans from Kentucky and Thomas Massie has been the one who has firmly voted no time and time again. Last time this bill was in front of the House, he was the only Republican to vote no. Donald Trump has thrown the kitchen sink at him, has been hate tweeting him constantly, and Massey has just continued to stick to his guns. He's not a moderate by any means. In fact, a lot of times there'll be a floor vote and it might be on something innocuous and it's 433 on one side and one or two on the other. And often Massey is one of those, sometimes the only one who is a no vote. So I, he's the one Republican I wouldn't expect to fold.
- [23:39]
Lawrence O'Donnell
So, and he may very well be in a discussion with some of the other nine who haven't voted yet. And maybe as these things work, they could be looking for a protection number. They could be looking for a number of no votes where you cannot blame the defeat on any individual voter. If you get up to seven, eight or nine no votes, then there's no one person who killed it.
- [24:05]
Carson Boyle
Yeah. And you know, you were talking earlier about culturally just how different the House and Senate are, and that is so true. But one way in which they're similar is that if someone's putting up a tough vote, they never want to have it said about them that they cast the, quote, deciding vote. So there certainly is more cover for those Republicans who would be bucking Donald Trump if they have some strength in numbers.
- [24:30]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Congressman Brendan Boyle, thank you very much for joining us in the middle of this breaking news situation on the House floor. Thank you very much.
- [24:36]
Carson Boyle
Thank you.
- [24:37]
MSNBC Announcer
MSNBC Films presents season two of the hit series from NBC News studios Leguizamo Does America, hosted by John Leguizamo.
- [24:46]
John Leguizamo
I'm here to meet with some exceptional.
- [24:47]
Norm Ornstein
Latin people leading the way.
- [24:48]
MSNBC Announcer
Premieres Sunday at 9pm Eastern on MSNBC. Start your day with the MSNBC Daily Newsletter. Each morning, read sharp insights from the voices you trust. Catch standout moments from your favorite shows.
- [25:02]
The second Trump administration has gone to unprecedented lengths to radically transform America.
- [25:08]
Stay up to speed with our latest podcasts and documentaries and get fresh perspectives from experts shaping the news. It's everything you love about MSNBC delivered to your inbox. Sign up now@msnbc.com and congressional scholar Norm.
- [25:24]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Ornstein has studied budget legislation for much longer than I have. In his latest article, he writes this about the Republican budget bill that you're seeing on the floor tonight. Is it fair to deprive children of food, the elderly of nursing home care, millions of health insurance, rural hospitals of needed revenue to make billionaires even richer? Is it fair to increase prices for school supplies, cars, clothing and other needs, hitting poor and working class Americans more so that President Donald Trump can get his misguided tariffs? Is it fair to let banks that defrauded consumers of billions off the hook while eviscerating the agency that protects consumers from predation by banks and other financial institutions? Fairness in this case meshes with decency. And the actions by Trump and his minions, including his cult following in Congress, are more indecent, sadistic and unfair than in any other presidency during our lifetimes. During our live coverage of the House floor now is congressional historian Norm Orenstein. Norm, what are you seeing in the way this is playing out in the House tonight? We already have, as we said up there, four no votes on the board that would produce a tie. And a tie does not advance the bill. If all of the remaining 10 votes go to the Republicans, that doesn't advance the bill. But we haven't had Thomas Massie's vote yet. So that would be fine, five. But as we know, those four could disappear and become yes votes in the second. But what are you seeing there?
- [27:06]
John Leguizamo
So a lot of the 10 Republicans who haven't voted, Lawrence, some of them, I'm sure, are waiting. And that includes some of the more vulnerable ones so that if it's going to pass anyhow, they'll vote no so that they get a little protection. You know, there are a couple of things to point out here. I've seen this before. We've seen, you know, I was around in 2000, 2006, when they held a vote, Dennis Hastert, the speaker, for over three hours in the House, which then was a record until three in the morning to get their version of the Medicare prescription drug bill through. They managed to horse trade to make it happen. But why are we doing this now and why is there such urgency? And of course, what we know is those Freedom Caucus people and many of the other right wing members don't like what the Senate did want to make changes. This is taking place now for one reason only, Donald Trump's narcissistic, egoistic desire to have a signing ceremony on July 4th. Otherwise, there's no rush in this. They could negotiate more, but they're little bitches. I mean, let's face it. And what Ben Orton was saying is, was in response to a question of whether they were being led around by Donald Trump. And the answer is obviously yes. So if they don't make this work now, they'll make it work soon. It's a cult. They'll get some version, probably this version of the bill through eventually. The longer it goes on and the more there's a focus on it, the more what I wrote, what you talked about so eloquently last night becomes apparent. People begin to look at what's there, and what's there is unfair to average Americans. It's sticking it to working class, lower class, middle class people to benefit those billionaires. And it is thoroughly indecent because they know what they're doing. They know it's wrong and they're still doing it.
- [29:15]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Norm, your latest article on Substack, which I was just quoting from, stresses the importance of fairness, or at least perceived fairness to the electorate, especially at the margin, especially at the decisive turn of the electorate that gets you to 51% in elections. One of the things the Republicans have done in this bill is to delay any of the Medicaid cuts until after the next congressional election. Will that work for them on the argument they will be trying to make that they have been fair to their constituents next November?
- [29:54]
John Leguizamo
You know, this is a kind of sleight of hand. But some of these changes, enough of them, I believe, are going to go into effect that people are going to feel it. They're going to feel the pressure. They'll feel it with the SNAP or food stamp program. They will feel it with other cuts that we're seeing out there, including education cuts, illegal ones that are taking away teacher training, after school programs, a lot of things that are going to hit people. This is an attempt to try and slide by some of it until after the midterm elections. Other things like, you know, the tax on tips until after the 2028 elections so that they can screw people after they have managed to get through. And let's face it, Lawrence, it is incumbent upon us and on Democrats in Congress and on people who believe in decency everywhere to point out to those who don't pay a lot of attention to this what the consequences are of Electing these people. We haven't done a very good job of it up till now. Fairness was an issue that really stuck it to Democrats in 2024. The sense that woke, quote, unquote, Democrats were favoring one group of people, including, say, on the student loan program over others who had already paid off their loans or who paid for their college by themselves. And now the fairness issue works against them. They're trying to wriggle around and make their way out of it. We cannot let that happen.
- [31:36]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Norm, I want to go back to a point you just made about the way this vote might break. We've now seen one of the 10 just move into the yes. So now there's nine not voting, still four nos. You made a point that I think is important for the audience to understand. There are some within that nine who are on the target list that Democrats have of seats that they can take away from Republicans if those people vote yes. And in those situations, it is very common for them to have a deal with the House leadership to say, I will vote yes only if you absolutely need me. But if you don't need me, I need to vote no so that I can get reelected. So it may be that Thomas Massie might be the only one who moves from that nine into the five, and when he does, the bill dies. And at that point, others might then actually join the no vote so that they are protected, or some of them might even cast a vote for it, as long as it's not gonna become law. It works both ways.
- [32:51]
John Leguizamo
Exactly. So. And, you know, we saw this fandango play out in the Senate, as we've seen so many times. And you and I have talked about this before, I believe. Absolutely. It was a kind of open secret that Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins had a deal with Mitch McConnell that they could vote the way it would work for their constituents if it didn't matter. But if it did matter, one of them at least would have to go the other way. What happened the other night is Collins, who's up for reelection, was able to vote no. That put the pressure on Murkowski to be the one who would go the other way. And I have to say, Lawrence, I can't let her get away with this. Lisa Murkowski, in justifying her vote, talked about how she had to represent Alaskans and protect them, even if it was going to hurt other Americans. Well, the way to protect Alaskans is to vote that bill down. And then they're going to have to come to you where you could get an even better deal. So this is all about cult behavior and trying to figure out how you can have it both ways. And exactly as you said, for these remaining nine members of the House, a bunch of them are trying to figure out how they can have it both ways.
- [34:02]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Norm Ornstein, thank you very much for joining our breaking news coverage.
- [34:06]
John Leguizamo
Thank you, Lord.
- [34:07]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Thank you. We're going to continue our breaking news coverage with Congressman Jamie Raskin. And we want to discuss with him, as a former constitutional law professor, a very important ruling by a federal judge today against Donald Trump trying to rewrite federal law. In April, a federal judge in Washington said this to a Trump Justice Department lawyer in a hearing in his courtroom in Washington, D.C. your view is the president can do anything in the world, even if it's unlawful, and there's just nothing that you can do about it. And the Trump Justice Department lawyer, Drew Ensign, did not dispute that. Drew Ensign disgraced himself by evading any actual response to the judge's challenge. Every sharp high school student in America knew that the correct constitutional response to that was, of course, the president cannot do anything in the world. And today, federal Judge Randolph Moss issued a 128 page written answer to his own question that he asked in open court in April. And in that 128 page ruling, Judge Moss says the president may not act in derogation of the laws that Congress has enacted. That is exactly the kind of constitutional response to Donald Trump's lawlessness that Professor Jack Rakoff was talking about on this program last night. And that is what Judge Moss has found Donald Trump has done. Judge Moss did it in a careful, legally written opinion striking down an executive order Donald Trump issued on the very first day of his presidency, when Donald Trump decided to eliminate the legal asylum process for immigrants that the United States Congress wrote into law. Donald Trump decided to just violate the law of the land. And today, Judge Moss said Donald Trump cannot do that. The judge wrote the court recognizes that the executive branch faces enormous challenges in preventing and deterring unlawful entry into the United States and in adjudicating the overwhelming backlog of asylum claims of those who have entered the country. But the judge said it is illegal and unconstitutional for the president, quote, to adopt an alternative immigration system which supplants the statutes that Congress has enacted. Joining us now is Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland. He is the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee. And, Congressman Raskin, I want to give you what they call in the Senate a point of personal privilege, because the president of the United States tonight decided to attack you direct, directly on his social media account. I don't have it in front of you. There were some very ugly words in front of me used about you. You may have seen it. But what is your response to Donald Trump? One of the things he said is you don't understand this tax bill and you never will. Is it possible, Congressman Raskin, that Donald Trump understands this tax bill better than you do, even though we have reports from the Oval Office that Donald Trump doesn't think that this bill is cutting Medicaid? That's what some Republicans have said about what he has said today.
- [37:17]
Jamie Raskin
Well, that's precisely how I think I upset him, Lawrence. I simply said if the president is lecturing the Republicans that they should never touch Medicaid or Medicare or Social Security, he clearly does not know what's in his own bill. And I didn't lob that at him as an accusation, but simply as a statement, because he would not be saying those things if he understood that that's what their bill does. They're talking about throwing 17 million Americans off of their health insurance. It's a trillion dollar cut in Medicaid. Meantime, he's telling them that they shouldn't be touching Medicaid. So I pointed that out. Apparently it came to his attention and he just launched into one of his inimitable diatribes. I suppose I don't mind being called a loser several times by Donald Trump, given that he's our only president who has lost the popular vote for president in two different elections. And the last time, when he lost by more than 7 million votes to Joe Biden, it upset him so much that he incited an insurrection against the Constitution, against, against his own vice president and against the Congress of the United States. And so, you know, that one doesn't trouble me so much. I suppose I don't like being called ugly by Donald Trump, but not everybody can live up to his exquisite levels of handsomeness and personal physical grace. And so that I would consider myself probably in the large majority of American men who simply can't live up to the exquisite standards that he set and his extraordinary popularity with American women.
- [38:53]
Lawrence O'Donnell
CARSON it was 2011 when I became the first person in the political media for Donald Trump to attack on Twitter. And I have to say it was very hurtful because he said something very similar about my looks at the time. And my makeup artist here, Bill G. Was very hurt by it because she does enormous work to Trump, try to hide what I really look like here. And Donald Trump apparently pierced that veil Congressman.
- [39:18]
Jamie Raskin
Well, I'll just add one other thing. Look, the real sin is having an ugly bill that throws millions of people off health care and an ugly soul. And people obviously can't control their looks. So Donald Trump should try to be a little more gentle in public about that.
- [39:33]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Carson we have a federal judge today who's ruling in a class action suit. So it's different from what the Supreme Court said federal district judges could not do with national injunctions. This does have national implications. And he said that federal judge has said, absolutely not. Donald Trump can simply not rewrite or ignore laws written by Congress, in this case the asylum law. But that ruling that he announced today certainly would apply to many other laws that Donald Trump has just ignored and rewritten.
- [40:06]
Jamie Raskin
Well, that's absolutely right. I mean, Trump and the people who surround him are acting like we have one of those constitutions that you find in, you know, certain dictate, you know, dictatorships which say that the executive can just declare an emergency and do whatever he wants. That's not our Constitution. Our Constitution applies in peacetime, it applies in wartime. It applies to Congress, it applies to the President, it applies to, to the states. It applies to everybody all the time. And so this is a very powerful, stinging opinion. More than 100 pages saying that the President cannot just unilaterally override the Constitution and the Immigration and Naturalization Act. We have immigration laws in America, and the president's got to abide by them if he thinks that they're not good policy. Come to Congress, submit a bill, he can get stuff through Congress. Look what's happening right now. There are about to throw 17 million people off of their health care coverage so he can get it through, but he has no right otherwise to trample our Constitution and federal laws which are supreme under Article 6 of the Constitution. We've got a supreme Constitution, not a supreme leader.
- [41:12]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Carson. So the vote is holding right now with the nine Republicans not voting, four no votes. The four no votes does not include Thomas Massie. So we know there's a fifth one that's available. Thomas Massie might be talking to those other eight who haven't voted yet. We'll see what happens here, but it's not clear where we're going to end up tonight. This bill does have a significant amount of Donald Trump's border policy in here. I won't call it immigration policy because it's a policy built on preventing anyone from coming into the country and trying to snatch millions upon millions of people and throwing them out of this country. Even if they've been here for 60 years, even if they came here legally from Cuba as a 75 year old man did 60 years ago, died in prison thanks to Donald Trump after being snatched by those ICE agents. So there is actually a lot of Republican border policy in this bill tonight.
- [42:14]
Jamie Raskin
Well, yes, indeed. I think what has the Republicans petrified is that the word is gone, gotten out about what's really in the bill. And it's overwhelmingly unpopular in the country. It's throwing 17 million people off their health care, more than 40 million people off of nutritional benefits and SNAP benefits. And it will drive our national debt much higher, another three and a half or four trillion dollars that the Republicans are going to add to the debt. And why would they vote for it? The only reason why would be to give an extra gargantuan tax break to the wealthiest people and corporations in the country. And we simply can't afford what they're trying to do to the country. It will be a very dangerous movement for America to go in this direction.
- [43:03]
Lawrence O'Donnell
And Congressman, on the, on the tax side of this, the difference in the top tax rate between the Democrats and the Republicans on this is two and a half percent. It's this talk the top tax rate Donald Trump wants is 37%. Top tax rates that the Democrats had imposed 39.62 and a half points. That's it, two and a half points. And the Senate Democrats offered the Republicans an opportunity to allow those two and a half points to be added to incomes over $10 million. Only over $10 million. And Senate Republicans said absolutely no, which clearly identified the kinds of incomes this bill is really designed to protect. It isn't even designed to protect the incomes of your average doctor. It's designed to protect the richest people in the world.
- [44:02]
Jamie Raskin
I mean, it's very hard to, hard not to interpret what's going on as class warfare by the very wealthiest people in society who control the largest corporations against everybody else. And so, you know, we're going to have a showdown election next year between progressive working class, middle class populism for the vast majority of the people against the people who are running the Republican Party today. And I think all of these last minute jitters are from Republicans who are recognizing what exactly they're signing on to with this terrible legislation.
- [44:36]
Lawrence O'Donnell
And guys, when the Republicans apparently believe that they've completely outsmarted you and outsmarted Hakeem Jeffries who believes he can win these Republican seats back if they vote for this because they have delayed the Medicare cuts until after next year's, congressional election.
- [44:58]
Jamie Raskin
Yeah, I think the people are way too smart for that. And people are already very anxious about what they're doing. They have worked in so many ways to turn our government into a gangster state. I mean, they start off by pardoning all of the insurrectionists and the cop beaters of January 6th, and they purge the government of prosecutors who worked on that. And then they start dismantling our ability to respond to foreign attacks on our elections and foreign criminal involvement in the United States. And, you know, we're really in the process of trying to defend all of our democratic institutions and the rule of law in America against all of this lawlessness and this attack on the living standards of the vast majority of the people.
- [45:52]
Lawrence O'Donnell
How are you going to describe this legislation if some version of it passes? How will you describe it to your constituents?
- [46:01]
Jamie Raskin
I mean, it's a bankrupt America bill, as people from right to left recognize it's a job killer, as Elon Musk has said. And it is a lethal threat to the, the medical security of Americans, as is completely plain from all of the provisions of the bill. So it's a danger for our country. It takes us backwards in every conceivable way. And this is why I say I can't think of a single reason anybody would want to vote for this unless they're so narrow mindedly focused on just enriching the people who are already the richest people in America.
- [46:39]
Lawrence O'Donnell
In addition to to this bill, there's a whole range of stunning dangers that are taking place to the American people in the Trump administration, in Robert Kennedy Jr. S orders alone, that could cost hundreds of thousands of lives over time around the world. He's blocking vaccine delivery not just here, but around the world. And these are the kinds of things that would be just huge stories were it not for this kind of chaotic stuff that's happening in the Congress today. And so there's a way in which accountability for voters to keep their government accountable has become the biggest challenge of their lifetimes. Because I don't know how the average voter out there can keep track of everything this Republican administration and this Republican Congress is trying to do to them.
- [47:36]
Jamie Raskin
Well, right you are. I mean, it is a full blown assault and there is extraordinary recklessness taking place across the board with respect to the public health of the people. I mean, I could understand it if it were Vladimir Putin trying to do this to the American people, or Viktor Orban or Kim Jong Un, the people who Donald Trump loves. But it's actually our own government that wants to throw 17 million people off of their health care. It's just an unbelievably divisive and polarizing thing to do and a dangerous thing to do. And there's just no reason the American people should have to be fending off this terrible attack by our own government on our people.
- [48:22]
Lawrence O'Donnell
I just want to update the audience on what's on our screen here. The House is voting on the so called rule to go forward with the bill and the Republicans don't have the votes yet. You see, the remaining time is zero. That's because the House speaker can keep the vote open far beyond the time running out. It's sort of an endless clock there. Those nine votes are all Republican. If even all of those votes go into the yes column, the bill still will be stuck because it'll produce a tie at 216 to 216. And a tie does not advance the bill. There are four no votes already recorded. They have stayed there. Those four votes can always move. They can always switch. As long as the vote's open, they could move over to the yes column, but they haven't done that. And we do know Congressman Thomas Massie is not included in those four no votes. We know he's one of the nine not voting. And we know Thomas Massie has been consistently opposed to this bill and will surely be voting no. So the four nos are really five at this point. And Thomas Massie may very well be conferring with the other eight who have not voted yet so that they can decide. The rest of them can decide how they're going to vote. And that decision is frequently a group decision when you're down to numbers this small. They're obviously under crushing president pressure from Donald Trump, who has all of their phone numbers and is trying to get all of them on the phone right now. Except of course, for Thomas Massie, who Donald Trump knows is unreachable by his pleas on this bill. Speaker Johnson probably trying to do exactly the same thing with these people who are holding out there. Congressman Jamie Raskin, do you have any feel for where this is going from here?
- [50:19]
Jamie Raskin
Well, in the past, the most right word Freedom Caucus members have talked a big game about deficits and about debt. And I think they understand that if they vote yes on this, it gives the game away. All of that is utterly empty political rhetoric and they'll never be able to utter the words debt, you know, debt and deficit in public again if they vote for this bill. And so I don't know. The question is whether some of the moderate Republicans afraid of losing their seats will hold out, and I hope that they do, but there's not been a great track record of that.
- [50:58]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Congressman Jamie Raskin, thank you very much for joining us.
- [51:02]
Jamie Raskin
You bet.
- [51:03]
Lawrence O'Donnell
And that vote can be held open endlessly for hours on end, as an earlier vote today was held open for over nine hours after the clock went down to zero. So we have no idea how long this situation is going to hold. We'll be right back.
- [51:19]
MSNBC Announcer
Stay connected with the MSNBC app bringing you breaking news and analysis anytime, anywhere.
- [51:25]
All the stories that we're covering are live and happening as we speak.
- [51:29]
Watch your favorite shows live.
- [51:31]
What's happening right now is a hostile takeover of the US Government.
- [51:35]
Read live blogs and in depth essays and listen to coverage as it unfolds. Go beyond the what to understand the what. Download the app now@msnbc.com app.
- [51:51]
Lawrence O'Donnell
We are continuing to monitor the House floor. One correction to our vote count. Congressman Thomas Massie has voted, this is just the rule to proceed to the bill and he has voted yes to proceed to the bill. He's going to vote against the bill when it's the bill itself that's being voted on. And so those four no votes are what we have now. And the nine who have not yet voted, the whole House is now waiting and could be waiting all night for nine Republicans to decide how they're going to vote. That list does include some of the Republicans who were mentioned today by Hakeem Jeffries as being targeted by Democrats for defeat in the next election if they vote yes on this. So that list, that's part of what's going on. And some of the people on that list of nine are complete right wing Republicans who speak a big, talk a lot about the national debt. That's their issue that's holding them back from voting. So we really have no idea how long that situation is going to continue on the House floor tonight. And yesterday, Donald Trump's Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, celebrated the illegal closing of the United States Agency for International Development, a program created by Congress and signed into law by President Kennedy 63 years ago that was destroyed by Elon Musk in a matter of days. It is exactly the kind of presidential executive action that Federal Judge Randolph Moss said today is illegal and unconstitutional. But Judge Moss's ruling applies only to Donald Trump's executive order ending immigration asylum that was enacted into law by Congress. And the lawsuits challenging Donald Trump's illegal executive action and closing USAID are moving at a much slower pace, but might have the same result, Time magazine reports. On Monday, medical research journal the Lancet estimated that USAID prevented the deaths of more than 90 million people just between 2001 and and 2021, just in 20 years. The study conducted by researchers from Brazil, Mozambique and Spain forecast that the defunding of USAID could lead to 14 million deaths by 2030. 14 million deaths in the next five years, including 4.5 million deaths of children and babies under the age of five. Joining us now is Dr. Atul Gawande, former assistant Administrator for Global Health at the United States Agency for international development. Dr. Gawande, thank you very much for joining us tonight. At this horrible point in the history of usaid, what have we lost in what Donald Trump, Elon Musk and Marco Rubio have done and what are we facing in the coming years?
- [54:50]
MSNBC Announcer
Well, I think that study that came out indicated what we have lost. That study was looking at the totality of USAID's funding and indicated that over the last 20 years, as you pointed out, 92 million lives were saved. That wasn't just through the global health programs. That was also through the development programs that advanced economies, advanced education systems, advanced agriculture, so that countries were moving to self reliance. And we've had a number of countries, many that have moved off of aid during that time. So what we are seeing is a, you know, a slashing of the, well, the elimination of the agency. 86% of the programs were terminated. What tiny part remains got transferred this week to the State Department. And then Senator Secretary Rubio put out a statement about what? That their plan will be restricted to those countries that offer a good deal to the United States by receiving the funds. That's not how you were able to stop hiv. You can't stop polio in the world. You can't address tuberculosis and disease threats if you're not willing to work with the whole world. That's what we lose.
- [56:13]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Dr. Atuldewanga, I'm so sorry that our time has been cut short tonight by our live coverage of the House. Thank you. Thank you very much for joining us tonight on this important story.
- [56:22]
MSNBC Announcer
Thank you.
- [56:23]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Thank you. That is tonight's last Word.
- [56:26]
MSNBC Announcer
Stay connected with the MSNBC app bringing you breaking news and analysis anytime, anywhere.
- [56:33]
All the stories that we're covering are live and happening as we speak.
- [56:37]
Watch your favorite shows live.
- [56:39]
What's happening right now is a hostile takeover of the US Government.
- [56:43]
Read live blog and in depth essays and listen to coverage as it unfolds. Go beyond the what to understand the why. Download the app now@msnbc.com apparently.