the speech was highly questionable. all the things that she said, i don't think really add up. i mean, the reality is, if she wants this to be bipartisan, she can reach out, she can actually go over and talk to mitt romney and susan collins. she already has lisa murkowski, et cetera, and try to do that on her own. she doesn't need democratic leadership's position to do that. she certainly didn't ask the leadership's permission to go and intern at that winery last year. so i don't know why she needs the permission of the democratic leadership to try to forge a bipartisan agreement. she did that on the infrastructure bill. so i don't think that any of what her arguments, the substance of arguments actually added up. >> yeah, the substance was bizarre because nobody in america actually really thinks that these super majority rules relate to anything that matters. people generally want government to try to do good things and they debate what's good. but the idea that certain financial policies and certain nominees to random parts of the judiciary are 51 votes, and then
department has brought roughly 700 indictments against those who went and attacked the capitol. what's not so great in what you were just excerpting from "the washington post" is reporting that the investigation is limited to those folks and potentially not reaching higher-ups. now, the attorney general gave a speech, a very lauded speech on january 5th, which was great, which said he's going to pursue the evidence where it leads and the like. but we're now a year past january 6th, and we've seen no signs of an investigation into trump or the coup lotters around him like steve bannon, that whole cast of characters. >> so what do you think the attorney general's reasoning is at this point if he's overseeing this type of probe and that's where things are at? >> yeah. so there's three possibilities. one is the attorney general's actually looking into all this, and he's got a secret investigation we don't know about. the second possibility is he's
underlying disease of division infecting our country. eliminating the 60-vote threshold will simply guarantee that we lose a critical tool that we need to safeguard our democracy from threats in the years to come. >> of all the days she could have given that speech to reiterate what she is entitled to do, she chose to do it to blow up the incumbent president of her own party's visit to her caucus, in a different era or against a different president, that would be seen as a kind of a political suicide. >> absolutely. it's something that i could not imagine happening to president obama, it's something i could not imagine even happening to president clinton. it is a really shocking thing that she had done, and it feels to me like a very personal thing that she had done, which i think is very unfortunate because this should not be about personal politics. i also think the substance of
more a year ago when biden was doing very well in the polls. i think, unfortunately, because of his polling drop, it has made him more susceptible for these sorts of maneuvers. and i think one of the things that has become very clear to me is that this has become extremely personal for these two senators and president biden. i mean, that speech that kyrsten sinema gave about a week ago when joe biden was coming to the senate. there's a lot of discussions as to why she gave the speech, but to me it was clear that the one thing she was trying to do was stick it to biden. and that is something that she would not -- if she felt that he was stronger. >> let's take a look at that and get your reaction on the other side. here's sinema on the floor. >> these bills help treat the symptoms of the disease. but they do not fully address the disease itself. and while i continue to support these bills, i will not support separate actions that worsen the
25% these days. and that has created a world where -- and this is what i want to get into with our experts tonight -- where even the people opposing the very voting laws he passed say things like this. >> when i witness dr. martin luther king's march on washington speech as an intern back in 1963, i dreamed about doing big things to help my state and our country. >> voting rights activists noting the lip service to dr. king's legacy by people who are undermining not only voting rights in general but the work of these underlying laws that are literally still the most severe, serious, strong voting rights and civil rights legislation that we have of '64 and '65. i just showed you the republican senate leader. he struck a similar note as a newer senator republican josh hawley touts mlk for paving the way. he was the first senator to join