CONTRIBUTING YET AGAIN TONIGHT FROM YOUR REPORTING.
BACK OUT TO THE SPIN ROOM IN
OHIO WE GO.
SENATOR HARRIS OF CALIFORNIA
WITH CHRIS HAYES.
>> THANK YOU, BRIAN.
SENATOR HARRIS, THERE ARE A
NUMBER OF TIMES TONIGHT WHERE
YOU BROUGHT UP REPRODUCTIVE
RIGHTS.
RIGHTS. >> YES.
>> YES. >> REPRODUCTIVE CHOICE.
YOU SAID SOMETHING THAT I HEARD
A NUMBER OF OTHER FOLKS SAY
ABOUT CODIFYING ROE INTO LAW.
>> YEAH.
>> YEAH. >> WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT?
>> IT MEANS NOT ONLY WOULD IT BE
SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT, NOT
ONLY WOULD IT BE SOMETHING THAT
SHOULD BE ENFORCEABLE IN OUR
COURT, BUT IT WOULD BE
ENFORCEABLE IN TERMS OF THE LAW
OF THE LAND.
>> LIKE A FEDERAL STATUTE?
>> AS A FEDERAL STATUTE.
AND IN THAT WAY WE COULD
OBVIOUSLY ATTACH THEN ALL OF THE
FEDERAL CONDITIONS THAT GO ON TO
WHAT WE DO AROUND STATE FUNDING
AND WHAT WE DO IN TERMS OF
PUBLIC HEALTH FUNDING TO MAKE
SURE THAT NO STATE LEGISLATURE
CAN JUST BASICALLY UNDO THE
IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF ROE V.
WADE, BECAUSE BE CLEAR ABOUT
SOMETHING.
SOMETHING. THE CONCERN THAT I HAVE IS NOT
NECESSARILY THAT WE HAVE TO WAIT
FOR THE UNITED STATES SUPREME
COURT TO UNDO ROE V. WADE.
EVERY DAY IN STATE HOUSES IN
AMERICA, THEY ARE WHITTLING AWAY
AT A WOMAN’S ACCESS TO
REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE.
SO THESE WOMEN VIRTUALLY HAVE NO
ACCESS, WHICH IS THE SAME AS
UNDOING ROE V. WADE.
SO WE NEED TO HAVE FEDERAL LAWS
IN PLACE IN ADDITION TO THE --
IN TERMS OF THE CONSTITUTION
THAT MAKE SURE THAT THESE STATES
WOULD BE PENALIZED IF THEY
VIOLATE THESE FEDERAL RULES.
>> SO WHY DOES THAT NOT HAPPEN?
YOU HAVE THIS DEMOCRATIC DEBATE
ABOUT MARGINAL CHANGE,
STRUCTURAL CHANGE THAT WOULD BE
AN ENORMOUS POLITICAL FIGHT.
I’M NOT SAYING THAT’S NOT WORTH
IT, BUT IT WOULD BE AN ENORMOUS
FIGHT.
FIGHT. >> I AGREE WITH YOU.
THAT’S WHY ON SO MANY OF THESE
ISSUE, I’VE SAID I’M JUST DONE,
RIGHT?
RIGHT? ON THIS ISSUE, THAT’S ONE OF
THEM.
THEM. BECAUSE THE REALITY OF IT IS
THAT I’VE BEEN IN THE UNITED
STATES SENATE TWO AND A HALF
YEARS NOW, AND THERE IS VERY
LITTLE THAT’S HAPPENING THERE.
THEY’RE GETTING NOTHING DONE.
AND THAT’S WHY AS PRESIDENT, I
AM PREPARED TO REQUIRE THAT THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WOULD
REVIEW ANY LAW COMING OUT OF ANY
STATE THAT VIOLATES A WOMAN’S
ACCESS TO REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH.
AND IF IT VIOLATES THE
CONSTITUTION AND ROE V. WADE, IT
DOES NOT GO INTO EFFECT.
THAT’S CALL PRECLEARANCE.
>> THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT MODEL,
ESSENTIALLY.
ESSENTIALLY. >> EXACTLY.
>> EXACTLY. >> YOU’VE HAD AN EXCHANGE WITH
SENATOR WARREN ABOUT TWITTER AND
TRUMP VIOLATING THE TERMS OF
SERVICE.
SERVICE. WHY DOES THAT MATTER?
OF ALL THE THINGS, WHY THAT?
>> ASK THE WHISTLE-BLOWER.
ASK MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES
CONGRESS.
CONGRESS. ASK THE PEOPLE WHO ARE PREPARED
TO TESTIFY ABOUT THIS
PRESIDENT’S LAWLESSNESS AND
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
ASK THE PEOPLE AND THE FAMILIES
IN EL PASO WHEN THAT SHOOTER
ADMITTED IN HIS MANIFESTO THAT
HE WAS INFLUENCED BY DONALD
TRUMP’S TWEETS.
TRUMP’S TWEETS. DONALD TRUMP HAS 65 MILLION
FOLLOWERS ON TWITTER, AND WE ARE
TO TAKE SERIOUSLY THAT THE
WEAPONIZATION OF THIS PLATFORM
BY THE PRESIDENT AND THE NEED
THEREFORE OF A PRIVATE
CORPORATION TO BE HELD
ACCOUNTABLE TO SAY HE HAS ABUSED
THE TERMS.
THE TERMS. AND IT COULD RESULT LITERALLY IN
THE THREAT TO SAFETY OF HUMAN
BEINGS WHO ARE PARTICIPATING IN
THE PROCESS OF JUSTICE.
>> THERE IS NOT A PART OF YOU
CIVICALLY, CONSTITUTIONALLY THAT
IS CONCERNED ABOUT THE PRECEDENT
OF A PRIVATE COMPANY TAKING THE
PLATFORM AWAY FROM THE PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES OR SOME
OTHER ELECTED OFFICIAL?
>> FREE SPEECH DOES NOT CONDONE
OR PROTECT THREATS TO THE SAFETY
OF OTHER HUMAN BEINGS.
AND SO THAT IS WHAT WE ARE
TALKING ABOUT.
TALKING ABOUT. LET’S BE REALLY CLEAR WHAT WE’RE
TALKING ABOUT, BECAUSE THIS CAN
GO INTO SOME ABSTRACT LAW SCHOOL
DEBATE.
DEBATE. BUT THE REALITY OF IT IS, WE’RE
TALKING ABOUT DONALD TRUMP
WEAPONIZING TWITTER IN A WAY
THAT COULD RESULT IN REAL
CONSEQUENCE, INCLUDING DEATH.
AND WE HAVE TO THEY CAN THAT
SERIOUSLY.
SERIOUSLY. >> DO YOU THINK HE PUTS PEOPLE’S
LIVES IN DANGER WHEN HE TARGETS
THEM IN TWEETS?
>> ABSOLUTELY.
>> ABSOLUTELY. >> DO YOU THINK HE KNOWS THAT?
>> DOES IT MATTER?
THEN YOU MIGHT AS WELL ASK ME DO
YOU THINK HE KNOWS THAT WHEN HE
SOLD OUT THE KURDS THAT THEY’RE
GOING TO BE SLAUGHTERED?
THE FACT IS HE DID IT.
THE FACT IS THAT HE IS
IRRESPONSIBLE.
IRRESPONSIBLE. HE IS ERRATIC.
HE DOES NOT -- HE IS LIKE A
2-YEAR-OLD WITH A MACHINE GUN.
RIGHT?
RIGHT? HE DOESN’T UNDERSTAND THE POWER
OF HIS WORDS OR HIS ACTIONS IN
WAY THAT THEY WILL ACTUALLY
IMPACT AND COULD END OTHER HUMAN
BEINGS’ LIVES.
BEINGS’ LIVES. SO WHETHER HE UNDERSTANDS IT OR
NOT, LOOK, HE IS THE PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES.
I DON’T ACTUALLY CARE WHERE HE
UNDERSTANDS IT OR NOT.
BECAUSE HE IS HE HAS SHOWN THAT
HE IS NOT RESPONSIBLE ENOUGH TO
SELF-REGULATE.
SELF-REGULATE. HE HAS SHOWN HE IS NOT
RESPONSIBLE ENOUGH TO EDIT WHAT
HE SAYS.
HE SAYS. AND HERE IS THE THING --
>> BUT THAT’S A PROBLEM BIGGER
THAN TWITTER, RIGHT?
>> YOU’VE GOT TO DEAL WITH ONE
THING AT A TIME.
AND WE CAN MULTITASK.
BUT I’M NOT GOING TO SIT HERE
AND SAY HE IS ABSOLVED.
>> RIGHT.
>> RIGHT. >> FROM HIS UNFILTERED
STATEMENTS AS PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES WITH 65 MILLION
TWITTER FOLLOWERS, THAT HE’S
ABSOLVED, BECAUSE THERE ARE
OTHER MEDIUMS ON WHICH HE COULD
DO IT.
DO IT. THE REALITY IS IT’S UNFILTERED
DIRECT TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC
WHAT HE SPEAKS ON TWITTER, AND
HE HAS WEAPONIZED HIS WORDS IN A
WAY THAT COULD RESULT IN HARM TO
OTHER PEOPLE.
OTHER PEOPLE. AND MAYBE I’M JUST KICKING IN AS
A FORMER PROSECUTOR, BUT I KNOW
THAT THESE REAL PEOPLE,
INCLUDING MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
WHO HAVE BEEN THE TARGET OF HIS
THREATS ARE IN FEAR OF THEIR
LIVES AND THEIR SAFETY.
AND THAT SHOULD BE TAKEN
SERIOUSLY, AND THERE SHOULD BE
ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THAT TERMS OF
A PRIVATE CORPORATION THAT IS
FACILITATING IT.
FACILITATING IT. >> ALL RIGHT.