Morning Joe - Morning Joe 7/21/22

Episode Date: July 21, 2022

Secret Service employees received multiple emails around Jan. 6, instructing them to preserve texts 

Six o'clock on the East Coast as we look live at Capitol Hill this morning, the January 6th committee will bring more evidence to a primetime audience tonight. What we're learning about tonight's testimony and the possibility of some never before seen video. Plus, Attorney General Merrick Garland is pressed about the Justice Department's response to the attack on the Capitol. We'll show you his response to a question about prosecuting former President Trump and concerns about the next election. Have the Senate taking rare bipartisan action? There is promising

progress on a bill to prevent food future coup attempts. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Thursday, July 21st, a big night tonight. Along with Joe and me, we have the host of Way Too Early and White House Bureau Chief at Politico, Jonathan Lemire, and former chairman of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele. Good to have you both. We begin with the new developments surrounding those deleted texts from the Secret Service from the day before and the day of the January 6th attack on the Capitol. A senior Secret Service official tells NBC News that employees received at least three emails, including one before the insurrection, instructing them to preserve all records on their electronic devices.

That's as clear as it gets. The first came in early December of 2020, according to the source, ahead of a pre-planned data migration that would essentially restore all devices to their factory settings. The next came in January, though the exact date is unclear. Both emails reportedly included reminders that federal employees have a responsibility to preserve their records and included instructions on how to do so. Though neither email mentioned the insurrection, a third email on February 4th reportedly instructed all employees to preserve communications specific to January 6th. By that point, several congressional committees had already requested

secret service records from that day. But the agency claims the data migration had already taken place by then and all relevant text messages were erased for good. This is just absolutely outrageous. Michael, still three warnings. They received three warnings and yet they still erased all the messages. I mean, man, this was not a mistake. I mean, people saying, oh, well, maybe it was a bureaucratic snafu. This this was not a bureaucratic snafu. This the warnings. I mean, irrespective of the warnings, you're a significant law enforcement agency within the federal government. You know damn well what the processes and procedures are with respect to the retention of documents. You know there's a federal document retention act that you're subject to, just like every other organ of government. So the fact that they're now hemming and hawing and talking about, oh, well, the process has started and it was underway. And no, that's nonsense. that's nonsense that's nonsense so they've got a lot to account for here um there

should be some heads that roll there there there is something i mean look what are you trying to hide here what what what should we be knowing that um that's related to those documents and now you're telling us well they're gone forever, we'll see just how gone they are. But the reality of it is the Secret Service is in is in the middle of this right now. Well, and the real problem here, Jonathan O'Meara, is I mean, there's so many problems here. But Michael Beschloss, presidential historian, I thought really underlined it well last night because these are law enforcement officers that were a part of, that were in the middle of a planned coup against the United States, who was trying to succeed in running a fascist overthrow of an American election. And by extension, the American government itself, they knew they had a higher responsibility.

This is what presidential historian Michael Beschloss said. Disappearance of the requested secret service records, no matter what explanation, is a disgrace to our country. And this is a point he made that I thought was a bit frightening. Runaway and lawless law enforcement and security agencies have at times historically been a feature of impending dictatorship. Coup d'etat attempts in world history have often gone hand in hand with plots to kidnap, detain, assassinate top leaders who might stand in the way. And what was so chilling

is what he's saying is, you know, if you want to pull off a coup, you need some some arm of law enforcement with you. And and the mere fact i mean of course trump failed in his fascist attempt to to overthrow an american election american government by extension but but they're members of law enforcement and you said this yesterday who actually were sympathetic to his coup attempt and and and so i i mean heard that. I mean, I know you've heard that quietly. A lot of people have been talking about concerns inside the Secret Service about these people being more loyal, some of them to Donald Trump than to the United States, to the United States Constitution, to American democracy. I brushed it off. I every time I see Secret Service members, I thank them for their

service to America. But my God, there's a cancer to borrow a phrase. There's a cancer growing inside the Secret Service and it needs to be ripped out. And this shows just how dangerous things have gotten inside the Secret Service. Yeah, let's start here. Secret Service is a law enforcement agency. What is one of the top jobs of law enforcement agencies? To preserve evidence, period. They didn't do that.

And there was obviously everything surrounding January 5th and 6th, some of those important days in the history of the Secret Service. But it's more than that. It's routine matter, of course. Government employees preserve records. It's part of the law. And there's a suggestion here. There's a violation of the Federal Records Preservation Act. That would be a crime.

They didn't do that. The timeline is so damning. As NBC reports, they got an email initially in December to preserve records ahead of this phone migration. And that part was scheduled. No one's disputing that. But they should have preserved it. They got a warning in December to preserve records ahead of this phone migration. And that part was scheduled. No one's disputing that. But they should have preserved it. They got a warning in December. They got more in January. And we know that about 10 days after the January 6 riots, they heard from the inspector general and congressional investigators to preserve

records. And they went ahead and 10 days, a week or so after that, went ahead with the migration that erased all that data. So they had adequate time here to preserve it. They needed to preserve that evidence, which is what it was of Donald Trump's behavior and whereabouts and actions that day, but also what was happening with the vice president who was at the Capitol mere feet from where the rioters were. And certainly there have been whispers in Washington for a long time about pro-Trump elements within the Secret Service. To underscore your point, most agents, of course, do their job with great professionalism, dangerous, hard jobs, and they should be thanked. But there have been questions raised about some loyalties here and about the conduct of some Secret Service agents, one of whom, of course, Tony Ornato, became a top advisor to the president inside the West Wing. And there's an extraordinary amount of

frustration from the January 6th committee and law enforcement, other law enforcement agencies and Democrats on Capitol Hill and the White House about how the service conducted itself during those trying days. And Jonathan Loomer, I hesitate because this seems so obvious, but I think it's worth stating. January 6th was a very important day. It was a day, if you were a member of the Secret Service, you would have to be under a rock to not know what happened on January 6th. And in the days leading up, you might have heard a thing or two about what might happen. And to get those emails and say maybe you miss them? Or how could you miss, how could you miss a throng of people, a mob of criminals storming the Capitol,

wanting to hang Mike Pence and kill members of Congress, desecrating the Capitol, breaking windows, leaving feces in the hallways? You're not going to preserve your data? That just seems like personal irresponsibility on the part of a person serving the United States Secret Service. I don't think personal. I don't think it's personally a responsibility. I think it's criminality. And that's what, unfortunately, one more thing that the Department of Justice is going to have to look at because there's criminality. You can't miss what happened that day. There is a cover up. There is an attempted

fascist coup of the United States of America, of American government, of an American election. And the Secret Service is is covering up a potential fight in the beast. President Trump lunging at someone's neck. You're going to erase your text. They've affected they have effectively been been a part of the cover up. I mean, in in 70s parlance, they burned the tapes. And and whoever whoever did that, whoever allowed that to go forward needs needs to pay. Let's bring in the reporter who broke the story. NBC News correspondent Julia

Ainsley. New development brought to us by you, Julia. If you could add any more reporting to this or context. And am I off to think if you're a member of the Secret Service on a day like January 6th, you would think instinctively I need to preserve everything and not need to be told. Yeah, I mean, you're absolutely right, Mika. I have to say I'm down here at grandma's house with the kids this week. When I started talking to sources yesterday, I had to call grandma in for backup because I knew we were on to something and that this was going to really take everybody by surprise. And I started to talk to sources and you have the timeline exactly right. At first, there was an email sent December 9th telling them we're going to do this

data migration. You need to preserve all of your records. Anything that you would think is material, if it's a text you're sending about a Starbucks order, you don't need to preserve that. Otherwise, according to the National Records Act, you need to start preserving this. And as a federal employee, you're trained on what is important to keep. They get another email sometime in January. I'm not told the date of that. I have to point that out. Then they get another one, February 4th, that is specific to January 6th, saying because we already have these requests in from Congress. Remember the DHS IG request they say didn't come until February 26th.

They say because of these requests already coming in and obviously, as you point out, the significance of the day, January 6th, you need to preserve all records, all communications, including text messages specific to January 6th. Now what I'm told is that perhaps many of them had already been lost or deleted by that point. But if you look at the overall timeline, it looks like this migration happened from January to April. So let's just look at that. Is it possible that every text from that day was the very first to be deleted? That's also hard to get your head around. Of course, we don't know the exact details of exactly what was deleted when. But I also have to point out that, you know,

if you're looking at intentionality here, it can be hard to put the tea leaves together. But overall, this is what we expect the National Archives to get to the bottom of. And I think you're going to keep hearing this argument from Secret Service. I'm just pointing it out because it's an argument I'm hearing from sources. And I think we're going to hear from the Secret Service is that they think that culturally they don't text very often. That really they do emails, they do radios, they make calls. It's not common for them to text, and they don't think that there would have been much material in text messages from that day.

Of course, we don't know until we can see it, and unfortunately now we'll never see it. But I just have to say that because it's something that kept coming up on conversations I was having,, look, we hardly ever text. So I'm pointing that out because you'll hear it later. I'm not defending it, though. It makes sense that they're busy. But at the same time, the fact that they're gone is practically impossible to conceive. NBC's Julia Ainsley, I want to thank you and your grandma for your reporting. Thank grandma. My mother, yes. Thank you. Your mother, yeah.

Thank your mom for stepping into the class. She's a nicer person. We appreciate it. So, Michael Steele, we don't text much. Yeah, no, that doesn't work. And one of the reasons it doesn't work is yesterday we had a Washington Post reporter on, Carol Lenning, that talks about one scandal after another, just personal scandals that the Secret Service has had.

It's always, she said, it always seems to be the text messages that would get them in trouble. They would be talking about other workers in a derogatory way. They would be talking about women who were subordinates in a derogatory way. And she said it was always, you know, it was always the text messages that got them in trouble. So this whole thing like, oh, hey, you know, come on, we don't text that much. It's a it's complete complete BS. Got to get his sound up. Yeah, we lost.

No, I was going to say the history, the history as as Carol and others just pointed out is right there. We know we know what that is. And we know how the Secret Service has, you know, performed based on those type that type of evidence, those texts, for example. But here's the thing that I'm still curious about. And I'm curious about for you, Joe, if you what you think about the fact that Ornato was so close brought into the White House as a deputy chief of staff, and it's now still in the Secret Service as the director of one of their divisions. How does that work? How do you take someone who's played that kind of role inside the administration and still retain them in some capacity, particularly given

the biases that were clearly exhibited by this individual and in working with Donald Trump. It just it just speaks to the culture that you were referencing a moment ago that seems to really drive a lot of what was happening here. So I think there's a lot more cleaning up and cleaning out to do with respect to not just these texts, but what is the culture inside this institution that they still they think it's OK to take that individual who's shown some clear bias and in his preferences politically and still think that he works in an organization that should be very clear of something like that. Yeah, I mean, he's shown clear bias. And time and time again, he's been caught lying. His word, according to others, is no good. He's lying again through the Secret Service, saying that Cassidy Hutchinson is making things up under the testimony when everybody else around is saying that's not true. So, yeah, it's again, it is it's a real problem with a culture.

It's a real problem when you politicize a culture like that. It just can't be that way. We have, by the way, coming up, we're going to be looking at another January 6th hearing, a blockbuster January 6th hearing tonight. We're going to be looking at the 187 minutes that the Capitol was under siege by the Trump rioters. And Donald Trump refused to do anything to stop that riot other than rewinding his television and being encouraged by the most violent aspects of that riot. We're also going to be talking about Steve Bannon, the prosecution. They didn't really break a sweat. No. They put two witnesses up.

They go, OK, I think we're done. Here, Bannon, we're going to check out his fashion statements, how many shirts he wore yesterday. I'm curious how medieval he went with the pin placement, ballpoint pin placement. But wait, there's more. Yeah, we're going to be talking about that. Also, if it were Scarborough country, we'd be playing The Devil Went Down to Georgia and have a picture of Rudy Giuliani, who is being forced to testify in Georgia. But we're high art now, so we won't do that. But we'll be right back. 187 minutes of Donald Trump's inaction. That's the focus of tonight's eighth hearing from the House January 6th committee investigating the

attack on the Capitol. The hearing will convene at 8 p.m. Eastern time and is expected to last around two hours. Committee Chair Benny Thompson will lead the hearing remotely after testing positive for COVID on Tuesday. The committee will present evidence of what it calls former President Trump's dereliction of duty with a minute-by-minute account of what happened inside the White House between Trump's rally at the Ellipse and his tweet telling the Capitol rioters to go home. The Washington Post reports the public could see outtakes from Trump's January 7th recorded address in which he attempted to condemn the rioters.

Former aide to Chief of Staff Mark Meadows Cassidy Hutchinson testified to the committee that Trump had to be convinced to make those remarks and that there were, quote, several lines that didn't make it in there about prosecuting the rioters or calling them violent. She said, quote, Trump didn't want that in there. He wanted to put in there that he wanted to potentially pardon them. The Post says the committee plans to drive home a key point. Not only did Trump allegedly do nothing to stop the violence, he also sat back and enjoyed watching it. Two military veterans, Congressman Adam Kinzinger and Congresswoman Elaine Luria, are set to lead tonight questioning, and we know of at least two witnesses who will appear live. Former Deputy National Security Advisor Matthew Pottinger and former Deputy White House Press Secretary Sarah Matthews both resigned their posts in the wake of the Capitol attack. Joining us now,

former U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuaid. And Barbara, we do want to ask you about the Secret Service situation. But first, give us a preview of what you expect to see tonight and what you've seen so far. Does any of it lead to something beyond the hearings? Yes. So tonight, I think this three hours of inaction is going to be very important to the case, because unlike most of us who have no duty to get involved when there's a crime occurring, average citizens don't, the president does as the commander in chief of our armed forces who has the duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. His inaction can actually amount to a crime. So if people died because he was failing to exercise due care

while he was aware that violence was occurring at the Capitol, that could cause legal liability for him, Mika, even beyond what's going on at the committee at the Department of Justice. I imagine they're looking at things like conspiracy to defraud the United States and obstruction of an official proceeding. But this could lend evidence to even charges of manslaughter under federal law. A death, even an unintended death that occurs on federal property can be charged as a manslaughter. And for someone like a president who has an affirmative duty to intervene, his failure to call up the National Guard or to even go on video or to tweet that they should stop could be the kind of omission that could amount to manslaughter. Yeah, you know, Michael Steele, I talked to committee members early on in this process when they were under criticism and they said, be patient. We're putting things together.

And I asked a few of them, what's the most compelling part of the evidence that you've looked at? They said, well, we can't go into the details. But the fact that you had Kevin McCarthy and other Republicans calling Donald Trump, screaming that they needed help, telling him to call his riot off, call his mob off. And they especially talked about that moment where Trump said, it's Antifa. And McCarthy yelled back going, no, it's these are your people. And he swore at the president. And the fact that the president had been warned by his own political allies that people were going to die. And he sat back and did nothing for one hundred and eighty seven minutes when he could have stopped it with a tweet.

We heard the testimony for the January 6th hearing last week where they asked, OK, you go in the Capitol. I went in the Capitol. I thought the election was stolen. When did you leave? He said, when the when President Trump told us to leave, we all we all left the building. Donald Trump could have stopped all of this. It's all on the record. And I do think how damning is that going to be tonight?

That one hundred and eighty seven minutes where he just sat back and reveled in the violence in his name? Oh, I think it's going to be absolutely damning. And particularly if you couple it with the video evidence that they accumulated from January 7th, trying to get the president to speak to what had happened on the 6th and not being able to do that, not wanting to do that. I think it really sends out a very clear message about the one thing that everyone keeps claiming they, you know, it's hard to get evidence of, and that is mens rea, the president's mindset when it came to what happened leading up to January 6th, on the day of January 6th, and after January 6th. I don't know how much more you need to understand exactly what Donald Trump thought about the events of that day. He enjoyed it. He reveled it. He rewind the tape

to see it over again live. So he's just watching it live and then push that rewind button and watch that part over again. So you have a very clear example of where the president's mind was. I don't know how the Justice Department ultimately looks at that. I know how the American people are looking at it. It's revealing itself in the polling, revealing itself in the interests that they have in this committee. And it has been an essential part of how this story has been told joe to make that point very clearly i get the whole thing oh my god he's a former president we've never done this before what do we do well you do what you do to any american who commits a crime and you have evidence sufficient evidence of that crime

it doesn't matter the position because you keep telling us no one is above the law. And yet you consistently give us an indication that maybe some people are. And that could be a real problem once all this evidence is in. To that point. And Michael Steele, you know, I think there's more dangers at this point. If someone clearly attempts to damage our democracy, and that is putting it lightly, there's more danger in not having accountability at the very top. The person who allegedly said Mike Pence deserved it. So it's not just sitting back and enjoying, but also confirming, reinforcing that the violence is deserved. Here's Attorney General, to your point, Michael Steele, Merrick Garland, in a news conference

yesterday when asked about the Justice Department's perceived inaction when it comes to the January 6th investigation. There is a lot of speculation about what the Justice Department is doing, what it's not doing, what our theories are, what our theories aren't, and there will continue to be that speculation. That's because a central tenet of the way in which the Justice Department investigates, a central tenet of the rule of law, is that we do not do our investigations in public. This is the most wide-ranging investigation and the most important investigation that the Justice Department has ever entered into and we have done so because this effort to upend a legitimate election transferring power from one administration to another, cuts at the fundamental of American democracy. We have to get this right. And for people who

are concerned, as I think every American should be, about protecting democracy, we have to do two things. We have to hold accountable every person who is criminally responsible for trying to overturn a legitimate election and we must do it in a way filled with integrity and professionalism, the way the Justice Department conducts investigations. Both of these are necessary in order to achieve justice and to protect our democracy. No person is above the law in this country. Nothing stops us. Even a former president?

No per- I don't know how to, maybe I'll say that again. No person is above the law in this country. I can't say it any more clearly than that. There is nothing in the principles of prosecution, in any other factors which prevent us from investigating anyone, anyone who's criminally responsible for an attempt to undo a Democratic election. That was about as straightforward as you could be. No person is above the law. And I must say, yesterday I was I was quite critical of the attorney general. And even before I saw this tape, I read an article in Lawfare by Ben Wittes. And by the end of that,

I felt badly about screaming from the cheap seats about what an attorney general was doing in a federal investigation. Because, I mean, here's the thing. While it's been frustrating, and I understand it's been very frustrating for all of us, to see prosecutors that worked with Mueller and prosecutors that worked in the Manhattan DA's office say Donald Trump is guilty of a crime. They waved it off and they said they believed he was guilty, but they didn't do anything. But Ben Wittich yesterday was right that people like me should not criticize the Attorney

General prematurely. Federal investigations are long, laborious efforts. And given the gravity of a possible prosecution of a former president, the pros of the DOJ and the FBI need to move with great caution. I agree with him, even while they're pursuing justice. So, you know, we remain a nation of laws. Even if Donald Trump time and time and time again tried to politicize the Department of Justice, it's something that his opponents should not do. And I will say it's very easy for me.

It's very easy for other commentators. It's very easy for Democratic politicians. It's very easy for people on Twitter to criticize Merrick Garland and federal prosecutors. But again, Jonathan O'Meara, and I'm sure Barbara can underline this. Sometimes federal investigations take a very, very long time. You had the Democratic candidate for governor, Jonathan, in the state of Florida who almost beat Ron DeSantis. I was just recently charged in the state of Florida, who almost beat Ron DeSantis. I was just recently charged in the federal investigation. I think that took five, I don't know, four, five, six years for that

investigation to run its course. There are other investigations of politicians and people are saying, well, what's going on in that investigation? Why is it taking so long? Federal investigations are long, laborious efforts. They want to make sure they get everything right. So, I mean, it would be obviously disturbing if Merrick Garland were moving too quickly on something as volatile as a possible indictment of a former president. And your points are well taken, but certainly it is true. There has been a lot of frustration from Democratic lawmakers and many of those inside the West Wing about the pace of this probe. But Barbara McQuaid, Joe just hit it. Sometimes the wheels of justice

move slowly. Further complicating matters is not just that Donald Trump is a former president. He could be in a matter of weeks an announced candidate for president again, which, of course, plays into it as well. But give us a sense here as to what you perceive the Department of Justice is doing and how what we've heard from the January 6th committee so far, culminating, at least for now, in the hearing tonight. Have they showed the evidence necessary for the Department of Justice, with their due diligence, to bring charges? Well, certainly the committee has done an excellent job of showing a very compelling narrative about what happened on January 6th and leading to that. But the Justice Department's job is very different. I think Merrick Garland doesn't want to just charge Donald Trump. He wants to convict him and have that conviction sustained on appeal.

The committee has shown us one side of the story without any cross-examination of witnesses. The Justice Department needs to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to a unanimous jury, which will include some people who are sympathetic to Donald Trump. And so to prove that, they have to do a lot more than what we're seeing before the committee. They have to put everyone in the grand jury. They have to review all of the text messages. And they have some tools that are available to them that are unavailable to the committee. Things like search warrants to get some of these phones and encrypted chats that maybe the committee has not had access to, the ability to flip defendants, which they are now doing with four members

of the Oath Keepers who had contact with Roger Stone and exploiting their phones. They've got the phones of Enrique Terrio of the Proud Boys and Stuart Rose of the Oath Keepers, looking at those that can get them into those conversations in the Friends of Stone group chat, things that the committee doesn't have. And so it's just it isn't that it goes slowly. It's just that there's more to do. And so I imagine that as Merrick Garland is sitting there listening to these very uninformed reporters speculating as to what theories the Justice Department is and isn't pursuing, he imagines needing a Luther the Anger translator. Remember

him from Key and Peel saying, you know, I'll tell you what I'd like to do with a hub and spoke conspiracy. But instead, he very patiently answers the question and repeats that they are looking into anyone who had anything to do with upending the peaceful transition of presidential power and that no one is above the law. Even when asked, even a president. Yeah, no one. I don't know how to say this any more clearly. No one. So they're on it. It was a very strong statement yesterday. Thank you so much for being with us. Former U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuaid, greatly appreciated. And and Mika, it was it was very strong. It was to the point. The things that I've heard, not just from from Democratic politicians, but I've heard from some Republicans, some independents, some former Republicans over the past year or two.

They're saying, oh, Donald Trump will never nobody. Yeah, he'll never be convicted of anything. He gets away. He's the guy that gets away with everything. For anybody that saw L.A. Confidential, he is Rolo Tomasi. He is the guy that gets away with it. Even people around Trump have laughed through the years that Trump gets away with everything. And so when you have the investigation of the Mueller report and you have 10 examples of where prosecutors could bring obstruction of justice charges. When you have Mueller testifying in a fact that charges would

have probably been brought against Donald Trump were he not president of the United States. But again, he gets away with it when you. And by the way, I say this, whether there's a Republican in there or a Democrat in there, it's ridiculous. This this guidance from the Justice Department from the 1970s president should be able to be indicted, whether they're Republicans or Democrats. If they break the law, they should be able to be indicted by the Justice Department. It's that simple. But you have that. And then you have Manhattan D.A. where you have prosecutors developing their case. I still I can't wait to hear why this investigation was killed. And these prosecutors who were ready to move forward suddenly are cut off at the knees and told, you know what, we're not going to pursue the investigation of Donald

Trump anymore. Really? And these prosecutors telling everybody he's guilty of crimes. They're not letting us go after a former president who is clearly guilty of crime. So, again, frustration has built up. Yesterday, though, Merrick Garland spoke to some of those frustrations. I think Barbara put it best when she said, you know, he's on it for whatever it is. I would say two things, though. Just randomly keep your eye on Fulton County. My instincts tell me that there'll be a story out of Georgia that'll be fascinating to watch. But it's a complicated time when you're dealing with a former president for a number of reasons. And it only gets more complicated as we head toward the midterms, because those who are still very misled by this former president will claim and follow his claims of a witch hunt, which will no doubt happen if we get closer to the midterms.

And Merrick Garland's job is to not listen to any of the noise out there and to focus on justice, which is often a slow roll. So, you know, stay tuned. Well, and, you know, Mika, the thing is, we were critical time and time again of Donald Trump and Barr for politicizing the Justice Department. And so if we're critical of Republicans politicizing the Justice Department and leaning in, we certainly don't want Joe Biden. We don't want Democrats or others trying to put pressure on the DOJ in any investigations they may have of Republicans, independents or Democrats. Because, again, you've heard me say it time and again, we are a rule of law. We are a nation of laws that govern by the rule of law.

And what separates us from other countries constitutionally, I've seen through the years, I believe it to be the legislative or the judiciary branch. And I think our federal courts did just that during during all the election challenges. You're seeing a Trump appointed judge do it again in the Steve Bannon case. He's not cutting Steve Bannon any slack because he was appointed to the bench by Donald Trump, nominated to the bench by Donald Trump. So, again, we're a nation of laws. That's something we should celebrate. It's something we should remember, too, whether Democrats are running the Justice Department or Republicans are running the Justice Department. So coming up,

while investigators continue to probe for potential interference in the 2020 presidential race, members of Congress are moving to stop candidates from stealing future elections. This is good news. Senator Amy Klobuchar joins us to talk about that development next on Morning Joe. There is some new movement on reforming the Electoral Count Act after months of negotiating. A bipartisan group of senators announced two proposals yesterday to close the gaps in federal law and prevent future candidates from stealing elections. Specifically, the bill seeks to close loopholes in election law that former President Trump and his allies tried to exploit to keep him in power despite the fact that he lost the 2020 election. The first bill would clarify the vice president's role in counting electoral college votes,

raise the bar for members of Congress to object and try to prevent fake slates of electors from interfering in the process. The second bill is aimed at protecting election workers. Joining us now, Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota. She's a member of the Judiciary Committee and chair of the Rules Committee. And Senator Klobuchar, you guys expect to hold a hearing on these proposals soon. Tell us how it's going in terms of Republicans and Democrats working together on this. And what does that tell us? Everyone that came out of January 6 understood that we had to get to the bottom of

what happened. That's what the January 6 committee is doing right now, including tonight. We had to fix the security at the Capitol, something Senator Blunt and I took very seriously. We have new police chiefs, new sergeant at arms, you name it. But the third piece of it was not allowing a procedure that was set in 1887. You've got to think Rutherford Hayes. We're not going to go there. Antiquated law and updating it. Literally one person can object from each chamber. I don't think they knew Ted Cruz back then in 1887. One person can object. And then you can throw the whole thing for each state they can object to and so what the group has done here and they were going to have the hearing on August 3rd Senator Blunt and myself hear this legislation and take testimony from witnesses is to suggest some changes to this up the ante on how

many people have to object and make sure you clarify the role of the vice president you name it because I was the one with you know Senator Blunt at 3 30 anti on how many people have to object and make sure you clarify the role of the vice president, you name it. Because I was the one with, you know, Senator Blunt at 3.30 in the morning, walking through the broken glass with the two young women with the mahogany box. So I know very well that this procedure has to be changed. Yeah, you know, Senator, this is great news. And I'm glad that Republicans and Democrats are working together on it. And one of the things I like so much about the about the bill is that it's going to require, I guess, a fifth of members in each chamber to raise an objection and start the process. Because in the past, of course, January 6th, 2021 is standalone.

I'm not there's no moral equivalency here. That said, it seems every four years there will be a Democrat objecting when a Republican wins, a Republican objecting when a Democrat wins. And it's really it's it's disgraceful. It's nonsense. Even even when it's peaceful and it's brushed aside. I love that you all are raising the level for those objections. Yes, so Senator King and Durbin and I had one bill. We gave it to this committee. Susan Collins and others on the committee have taken this and really got an agreement

between a bipartisan agreement. Now, I know everyone's going to want to look at it. It's going to take a few days, as I said. This is a big deal to change this. But we have to do something. You can't allow each state. It's not just you're right about the one person objecting. They can literally do it to each state, Joe. They could do it for all. And each time they do, it takes like three to four hours. We had anticipated without the insurrection it was going to take at least 24 hours through the night to go through this.

And then you have the other piece of it, the fake electorate slates. Something has to be done so that never happens again. And we just have to make sure that the voices of the American people are heard and they can duly elect their president. This procedure must be reformed. Yeah, you know, Michael Steele, Michael Steele has the next question. Michael, I just want to say, if this is brought in for a landing and it looks like it's going to be, we talk about division in Washington all the time. But there are obviously, as you know, there are a lot of bipartisan bills that pass every day that nobody pays attention to. But I mean, this would be the third really

significant piece of bipartisan legislation. You, of course, had a massive transportation bill that passed with bipartisan vote. You had the gun bill, which, again, yeah, it didn't go far enough, but it was the first safety gun safety legislation in a generation that passed both chambers and was signed into law. And now something that you have both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal editorial pages for a couple of years have been saying needs to be reformed. This Electoral Count Act. This is basically an insurance policy against the next January the 6th. That would be three bipartisan achievements from the House and the Senate. And I say good on them.

Yeah, I would, too. And this, I think, of those bipartisan achievements is probably one of the most fundamentally important, because if this process doesn't work, then it doesn't matter whether you have a bipartisan infrastructure bill, because you're sitting there in the courts and in the Congress trying to figure out who the president is. And to that point, Senator, it is very good and very important to know that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is on board. He's clearly working to get this passed. Do you have the sense that this legislation, A, will go through a lot, you already referenced, people are going to take a look at it, will go through a lot of markup and changes? Or do you think the members have gotten to that sweet spot? And two, when you get to that final push, how much are you really counting on Republicans to deliver more than just five votes, nine votes, 10 votes to get it through?

Well, I hope they would deliver more votes because has been pointed out this has been a brewing problem for years. I also think that you have to allow all members to look at these bills because this is complex, as I said. One of the reasons we're having the hearing, we're going to agree on witnesses, is to explain this proposal as well as what the problem is. And I wanted to add one more bipartisan bill that is coming our way, Joe, and that is the computer chip bill, the semiconductor bill. That's really important for our competitiveness. We've been working on it now for weeks with Senator Schumer and Young and Cantwell over here in the Senate, many others in the House. So I'd watch for that as well. So through all of this, and we know that's been a

trying time, there continues to be good work in passing bills and sending them to President Biden's desk. That would be critical. And what about what about the China competitive bill that that seemed to be going in the right direction? I know that we've had Senator Young on several times from Indiana to talk about it. He's been working with Chuck Schumer. Is that going to pass or is that going to stay basically held up? It's basically being divided up now. The computer chips, the science piece of it is what's moving ahead. But the conference committee is going to continue on the other pieces. And I'm hopeful. I know many Republicans and Democrats want to get that

through, that that will go through as well. So I care a lot about some of those pieces, including our favorite subject of antitrust. There's funding in there. So anyway, we must move forward. And I do think I'm looking forward to watching the hearing tonight. You know, the 187 minutes of what he didn't do. Your viewers should be aware, he takes a special oath, man. The president takes an oath not just to protect the Constitution, but to faithfully execute the laws of the United States. So was he doing that in those 187 minutes when he was watching TV, refusing to call when the mayor's calling him, his own party members are calling him, his family is asking him, his own staff is asking him to do it. And as we found out in our security hearing over in the Senate that Blunt and Portman

and Peters and I did, the National Guard is sitting there on a bus. They arrive while all of this is going on. People have already died and they finally get to the Capitol at about 520 hours and hours and hours after the insurrection has started. It's hard to believe a president couldn't have changed that. All right, Senator Amy Klobuchar, thank you very much. You never stop working. Good to see you.