0 >> good evening mehdi, thank you my friend. much appreciated. >> and thanks to at-home for joining us this hour. really happy to have you here. we've got a lot to get to tonight. solid on brayden. first of all, i want you to see if you notice a pattern here. i'm going to show you something. and i you notice a pattern here. i want to see if you can sense some consistency over time here. i'm going to put a date stamp in the corner of the screen so you can see when all of these happened, but see if you can pick up on the pattern among them. watch. after ascertainment has been had, that the certificates are authentic and correct in form, the tellers will count and make a list of the votes cast by the electors. >> after ascertainment has been had and that the certificates are correct in form, the tellers will count and make a list of the votes cast by the electors. >> after ascertainment has been made that the certificates are authentic and correct in form, the tellers will count and make a list of the votes cast by the electors. >> after ascertaining that certificates are regular in form and authentic, the tellers will announce the votes cast by the electors. >> after ascertainment has been had that the certificates are authentic and correct in form, the tellers will count and make a list of the votes cast by the electors. >>after ascertainment has been had that certificates are authentic and correct in form, the tellers will count and make a list of the votes cast by the electors. >> after the ascertainment has been had that the certificates are authentic and correct in form, the tellers will count and make a list of the votes cast by the electors. >> notice a theme? it's a script, right? it's always the same every four years. whoever is acting as the president of the senate, whoever the vice president is, it comes time every four years for them to open up and count all the electoral votes, and it's always the same. i mean, you know, with one or two little word shifts here or there, it's always the same thing. after ascertaining that the certificates are authentic and correct, the tellers will announce the vote cast by the electors every four year. the words may shift a hair or, two but it's always the same every four years until this last time. this last time for the first time ever started off as it always does but careened off in a whole new direction we've never heard before. watch. >> after ascertaining that the certificates are regular in form and authentic, the tellers will announce the votes cast by the electors for each state beginning with alabama, which the parliamentarians advise me is the only certificate of vote from that state and purports to be a return from the state that as annexed to it a certificate from an authority of that state purporting to appoint or ascertain electors. >> what was all that at the end? all that stuff that the parliamentarian has advised you? that was all new. as far as we can tell, nothing like that has every been said at any one of these things, but mike pence when he opened the electoral votes january 6th last year, he added that whole new bit. the parliamentarian has advised me there's only one document that counts as a certificate of vote from a state, and that certificate, he says, has annexed to it a certificate from an authority of that state. that's all new language that we've never heard before in this context. vice presidents always say the exact same thing when it comes time for them to announce the electoral college votes. but when mike pence did it, he added this whole new complicated clause saying the parliamentarian had advised him that only one certificate of electors could be counted from any one state, it had to have the explicit blessing of the authority of that state. that was all new. you know, there's been some minor drama around the electoral college before around previous elections but no vice president ever before felt the need to get a parliamentarian's ruling, basically giving him a clear legal way to assert that he doesn't have to count any forged fake set of electors that might have been sent in to him alongside the real ones. no vice president has ever before had to get some sort of language from the parliamentarian explaining that if two sets of electors were sent in from a particular state, he was only going to have to count the one. but mike pence had to do that, which means vice president mike pence knew in advance of january 6th that republicans in multiple states had sent in forged fake electoral votes, documents purporting to be the real votes from the states even though they were not real. we know he knew about it because we can see he had to maneuver in advance of counting the vote to get the parliamentarian to give him that language so he could justify not counting the fake votes. reporter kyle cheney at "politico".com gets credit for catching this and catching it at an auspicious time. it was 2:55 in the morning on january 6th last year. january 7th, the night after the attack, kyle cheney that night made note of how pence's language seemed to be different than all previous vice presidents have used for every previous electoral vote count mr. cheney was totally right. it's totally obvious once you lay down what pence said, all that extra verbiage pence said alongside the austere unchanging language the o'times the vice president has done the count vote other times. reporter kyle cheney figured that out based on the language pence used, figuring that pence's office must have worked with the parliamentarian ahead of time to head off this stunt, this plot, what republicans were trying to do, sending in these forged electoral college votes, which they did, in fact, not only filled out and keep, but filled them out, signed them, and sent them in to the national archives and in to the united states senate as if they were real. and since then we have learned more about how it has happened, particularly in recent days, although, we still don't know exactly who did it. it's at least seven states. republicans clearly were working from some sort template document. all seven documents had the same font, same spacing, same basic language to create these forged electoral college documents. we still don't know who created the template, who sent them the template. who told them how do this exactly? in five of the seven states that created documents like this, republicans falsely, bluntly asserted we the undersigned being the duly qualified electors of the president of the united states, they actually said they were the duly elected electors. they were not. they were neither duly elected nor qualified, but they said they were and signed their names to it. republicans used that language on these false elector documents in georgia and arizona and nevada and wisconsin and michigan. in the two other states, new mexico and pennsylvania, republicans filed a similar document, likes the same, same font, same language, except crucially in pennsylvania and new mexico they changed it so they weren't the state's legal electors. in new mexico and pennsylvania the republicans instead inserted some language saying that ultimately some day they might be the real electors and in which case these documents should be processed as their votes. that kind of makes all the difference, right, in terms of whether or not you're trying to pass yourself off as electors when you are not. in making that change to the template language of that document, at least in pennsylvania, that may have saved the republicans who signed that document from prosecution for forgery or another state crime. that's according to a new statement from pennsylvania's attorney general who is explains it was basically despicable what the republicans did, but how important they put in that caveated language, explaining that they will not pursue charges against republicans who filed that. on the front page of the paper today in lancaster, pennsylvania, is a story about the republican fake electors from that state including one of the electors telling lancaster online that, in fact, it was the trump campaign that told them to file the forged paperwork. in "the detroit news" there's new reporting from a reporter about how the fake electors in michigan came up with a few different schemes by which they plan to get themselves physically inside the capitol while the real electors were meeting to vote, including trying to get a republican legislature to sneak them in. another one of the fake ee lengths tells "the detroit news" that republicans were acting on a request from the trump campaign when they set out to create the forged documents. michigan's attorney general last week here on this show announced that while it's still possible that state charges might be brought against the michigan republicans who signed their names to the forged documents, she has nevertheless referred the matter to prosecutors in michigan for potential prosecution, we since learned that the attorney general in new mexico has also done the same. the attorney general also is looking at potential federal prosecution. this is a move first reported by the "albuquerque journal." election laws are the foundation of our dmom and must be respected. while review under the state is ongoing, we have referred the matter to the appropriate federal law enforcement authorities and will provide any assistance they deem necessary. so, again, pennsylvania and new mexico both sort of caveated their forgery, softened the language so that they weren't just bluntly asserting they were the real electors when they weren't. nevertheless a state review is growing and it's been referred for prosecution. that is also true in michigan and also the state attorney general is not ruling out potential state charges there against the michigan fake electors. in pennsylvania, the attorney general says based on the fact that republicans caveated their language and department actually purport to be the real election, his office is referring it not only for federal prosecution but state charges will not be forthcoming at least in that state. so this is turning out to be -- this is turning out to be an interesting story and an ongoing one, but it's not just about something that happened in the past. this is a real-world problem in an ongoing way. i mean, here, for example, look at this. this was last week in florida. they finally held a special congressional election to fill the seat of the late democratic congressman al c. hastings. he was democratic. it was always likely that they would be electing another democrat to succeed him. florida governor ron desantis refused to hold an he lecz to fill that seat for as long as he could. so long as no election was held to fill the alcee hastings seed, they would be down a democrat in the house of representatives. he held off and held off and held off. he finally got sued to hold the election and finally we did get the election last week more than nine months after congressman alcee hastings died. like i said, this is a really democratic district. the democratic seat was superhot and heavy. ultimately i think the successful candidate in the democratic primary won the primary by only five votes, five votes, but even by that exceedingly narrow margin, she did, indeed, win the primary margin, which means she was the democrat on the ballot last week and she won the general election. she won the special election last week in an absolute landslide. her name is sheila cher full lus mccormick. she's got a great story. she's the child of haitian immigrants. her parents were a taxi driver and a made. she is now a lawyer and a ceo of a health care company. and thanks to her blowout victory, she's now the first haitian-american ever elected to congress from florida, the first elected to congress ever. a great story all because she cleaned up in that race. she got 79% of the vote in that election last week. the republican who ran against her got less than 20% of the vote. her margin of victory if there that special election wuls almost 60 points, just a complete blowout. but because of where the republican party is right now and what they're now wired for, that republican who ran against sheila cherfilus-mccormick, he's refusing to concede and is contesting the results. he's brought a lawsuit to try to block the results. said after election night, quote, i did not win, so they say. he recently told one cbs station in florida, quote, we'll have some stuff coming out that we've recently discovered. the dude lost this race by 60 points. he did not break 20% of the vote in a two-way race. i didn't win, so they say. republicans now, any race, anywhere in the country, any margin of loss, it doesn't matter. why would they accept an election result unless they won? why would any republican losing any election anywhere in the country from this point forward admit that they had lost, concede, and congratulate their opponent? think that's the way to get ahead in the republican party right now? sheila cherfilus-mccormick will be sworn in tomorrow on capitol hill. her republican opponent who she beat by more than 60 points, he is not conceing that she won that race, even as she's slated to be sworn in because republicans, because that's the way the republican party works now. they're a post-election party. at the rally former president trump held this weekend, one of the republicans who signed a forjd document, he spoke as one of the warmup acts for trump because why not. this is whattet a rally is like now for a presumed republican presidential nominee in the next election. >> who won the election? >> trump. >> you're right. trump won. trump won. we're going to fix 2020. i hope we going decertify 2020. how about you? [ cheers and applause ] >> trump won, see you later. >> and no more are they going to be able to get away with this kind of deception, this kind of fraud, and illegal activity, not only people in general, but the election workers. we want indictments of the election workers so that they don't continue to do this. >> i'm sure you've read my name in the paper. oh, well. screw the media. the fake media right back there that donald trump always points them out. fake news media. boo on the fake news media. boo on the fake news media. i don't believe a word they say. i don't believe a word they say, a word they print. i've had several media outlets call me, "washington post," cnn, why i wasn't a trump elector. i called on the legislature to vote to decertify the 2020 election. >> putting people who signed the forged elector paperwork up on stage so everybody can cheer for them to get them warmed up for cheering for the former president. i mean, this kind of stuff does seem crazy. like this seems like the whole vibe on the trump rally thing is kind of like low rent and out there, right? but this is what it's like in the republican party right now. this is how they are gearing up for the next election. you know, indict the election workers. but it is working for them as planned, even in the high rent districts. i mean the new texas voting restrictions like in many states, they were passed on the pretext that all that election fraud, that justified lots of new laws in texas to make it harder to vote in that state. that's paying off already. you saw the headline this weekend. election officials in texas reject hundreds of ballot applications under state's new voting restrictions. quote, election officials in one of the most populous counties in texas have rejected about half of the applications. they established new limits on voting over the objections of democrats, part of a wave of efforts by republican-led states to impose new restrictions. many in the republican party echoed phammer president donald trump's baseless claims of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election in arguing for the new lee striczs. the county clerk's office in travis county, the fifth most populous county, home to texas's capital cited changes to i.d. requirements, rejecting about half of the 700 applications for mail-in ballots. they're throwing out half the ballot applications because the new restrictive voting law says they have to, and you had to pass that voting restriction law because of all of the fraud. decertify, decertify. it's working perfectly for them. i mean it looks crazy to the rest of the country, but it's working perfectly for them. and what's to stop them? kyrsten sinema and joe manchin? this week in washington president biden will mark one year in office. today on the federal holiday to honor the late dr. martin luther king jr., the king family said there should be no celebration without legislation, meaning without voting rights legislation. there was a major voting rights march in washington today including members of dr. king's family. >> so let me be clear. when states are engaging in lawless voter suppression, only the law can stop them. senators sinema and manchin also say if they -- if the bill doesn't get bipartisan support, it shouldn't pass. well, the 14th amend, which granted citizenships to slaves in 1868, that didn't have bipartisan support. should formerly enslaved people been denied citizenship, senator sinema? the 15th amend that gave formerly enslaved people the right to vote in 1870, that didn't have bipartisan vote. should former slaves be denied the right to vote? senator manchin n 1922, '23, and '24, some senators filibustered an anti-lynching bill that passed in the house. would senator manchin and senator sinema supported blocking those bills too? i'm just applying their logic here and showing that it's not logical at all. to them the filibuster's sacred except for when it's not. in 2010 senator sinema supported the idea of using reconciliation to get around the filibuster and pass health care reform. just last month they both supported an exception to the filibuster, to raise the debt ceiling, but they draw the line at protecting the rights of millions of voters. history will not remember them kindly. so no matter what happens tomorrow, we must keep the pressure on and say no more empty words. don't tell us what you believe in. show us with your votes. history will be watching what happens tomorrow. black and brown americans will be watching what happens tomorrow. in 50 years, students will read about what happens tomorrow and know whether our leaders had the integrity to do the right thing. mr. president, senator manchin, senator sinema, members of the senate, pass the freedom john r. lewis act now. if you can deliver an infrastructure vote for bridges, you can deliver voting rights for americans. if you do not, there's no bridge in this nation that can hold the weight of that failure. >> martin luther king iii speaking today, on the holiday honoring his father. in 50 years students will read about what happens tomorrow and know whether our leaders have the integrity to do the right thing. what he is referring to there is the united states senate is tomorrow finally taking up voting rights, unless senator joe manchin and senator kyrsten sinema want to take up voting rights, it will fail. you look at the kinds of pressure and argument you had there. the chair of the congressional black caucus, congresswoman joyce beatty was there at the march as well. she's been not just a stalwart on this issue but leaning forward where a few members of congress can be put on the line and be arrested for civil disobedience last year. we're going to be speaking with her live in just a moment. a lot to get to tonight. stay with us. moment. a lot to get to tonight. stay with us