America. Modelly would tell us, andy, it could be dominant by the end of march. Thats the sobering news. All in starts right now. Good evening from new york. Inni im chris hayes. We are one day away from the start of the historic firstever second impeachment trial of donald trump, for incitement of insurrection on january 6th which left five people dead. O we are in unprecedented territory. N we have never impeached a president twice. Never tried one of office. Theres the long tables moved in for impeachment managers and defense teams to socially am distance. Of course, we have a pandemic unlike the last time we did that. The Trump Legal Team submitted their pretrial memo arguing the trial is unconstitutional and a politically motivated r pr attack on trump. House democrats filing a see you in court type of response. Heres what we know so far about the days look like ahead. Tomorrow we expect four hours of debate about the question of the constitutionality of the impeachment trial. There will then be a procedural vote which will begin on wednesday at noon and consist of up to 16 hours of oral arguments for each side taking place wednesday, thursday and friday. Trumps lawyers requested a pause for the sabbath. We expect proceedings to continue next week with questions from senators, possibly a debate over witnesses and possibly a verdict. Well be covering all that as it happens. Details on the arguments. It is wort taking a step back to look at the whole picture here because we are really in the third act of a threeact drama. One that started when donald trump first ran for president in 2016. He won the Electoral College, he won the presidency while losing the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes. And in that election he was the beneficiary of not one but two criminal conspiracies to tilt the Playing Field in his favor. The first directed by trump himself according to Court Documents and michael cohen, the conspiracy to pay hush money to a porn star to hide his affair from the public right before the election. Second conspiracy, russian interference in the election in his favor, the degree to which he was immeshed, the extent still remains unclear, but beyond dispute welcomed and solicited. Soon after the 2016 election democrats and republicans, the house and the senate, and the justice department, set about investigating that russian er interference in part to get to the bottom of what happened but it all underlined the fundamental point of issue which is that donald trump is just not a person who believes in free and Fair Elections. To his core donald trump is a cheater and believes in cheating, and one thing to cheat at golf and marriage but it is another thing altogether to cheat at democracy because in d cheating at democracy means destroying democracy. Donald trump is a person who ng manifestly cheats and wants to u cheat. That was the core of the story of the russian interference, he and his campaign, his son, welcomed and exploited the results of the 2016 election which again were very narrow, 70,000 votes across three states you have a different outcome. They were forever colored by the fact that trump cheated, he defied the basic ground rules of free and Fair Elections. Fast forward to act two, the first impeachment of donald trump. B had to go through that one because it had become clear that trump was trying to cheat again in the next election. He was caught red handed itum essentially attempting to rerul the successful play of 2016 using the states to withhold foreign aid for ukraine that would essentially tilt the Playing Field against his opponent. His opponent, joe biden, won. Now, the argument republicans made at the time was, well, its only nine months until the election. If you dont like donald trump vote him out then. I would say let the Voters Decide. Let the Voters Decide this thing. The voters are voting. It is up to the voters to decide. Thot it is better to let the people decide. The answer is an election, not an impeachment. An oh yes election. The voters, let the Voters Decide. We should take our cue from the voters. What do the voters want . Democrats like schiff lead impeachment manager argued thatn wouldnt work because we cant trust its a fair and free election with this man in w office. Hes guilty as sin but why not let the voters clean up this mess . And here to answer that question we must look at the history of this presidency and to the character of this president or lack of character and ask can we be confident that he will not continue to try to cheat in that very election . Can we be confident that americans and not foreign powers will get to decide and that the president will shun any further foreign interference in our Democratic Affairs . And the short, plain, sad incontestable answer is no, you cant. You cant trust this president to do the right thing. Not for one minute. Not for one election. Not for the sake of our country. You just cant. He will not change. And you know it. And then we know what happened next. We did get that election. The republicans acquitted donald trump. Voters took the republicans advice. They voted donald trump out. Fair and square. Joe biden beat donald trump by a sizable Electoral College majority and a big margin, 7 million votes. And so then what does trump do . He refuses to accept the results. He seditiously plots to overturn them, he pursues every possible avenue in attempting to overtur the will of the people culminating in a deadly attack on the capitol designed to stop the transfer of power at which opponent it was clear to o democrats another impeachment ii unavoidable because this was an unacceptable frontal assault on democracy. And what do republicans say then . Well, its too late now. His terms almost over. Last year it was dont impeach him, let the Voters Decide. The Voters Decided, and then he tried to overturn the voters with help and became, well, dont impeach him. We just had an election. Lp it is too late now. Ha cant do anything. In all three cases, the issues always been the ny same. This man does not believe in democracy and increasingly the party that follows him does not either. Trump is opposed to them. He takes actions in opposition to them. He is a threat to the republic. Hiding behind process arguments is cowardice and abdication of duty. If the republicans want to defend the president s conduct then by all means try to defend him, but they wont and they largelyan cant because its indefensible. And it has been all along. Want to bring in conservative attorney george conway, staunch trump critic. Ve cofounder of the lincoln project. Good to have you on, george. I saw a lot of process arguments on the sunday shows from republicans. He it is very clear to me that the easiest and most cowardly thing for them to do is just not to try to get into the merits of this and say, well, we are cant try him now. The reason he is not in office y when he is tried is Mitch Mcconnell delayed it but the argument doesnt seem like a good one in terms of the law and the constitution. What do you think . It absolutely isnt. I think as chuck cooper, very important conservative lawyer in washington, d. C. Pointed out in an oped just the other day, the text of the constitution does not support the argument they th want to latch on to because it does not say that former officeholders cannot be impeached and removed. D we conservatives like history, theres a history of people being impeached and tried after leaving officer. In fact, in 1787 when the framers laid out nicely in the house brief, in 1787 just before the framers began the e constitutional convention, there was a famous impeachment in the United Kingdom of warren hastings, who had been governor general of india, and he was charged with corruption after he had left office and returned to london and the framers were fully aware of that precedent. In fact, at the time of the founding, many states allowed specifically allowed impeachments of former officeholders. And then, in 1876 there was an impeachment of a secretary of war who resigned two hours before he was impeached. Im he ran over to the white house and presented his resignation to president grant because he knew he was going to be impeached. And the senate tried him any way. The house impeachment, the senate tried him anyway and voted to continue with the trial and all the precedent is against donald trump here. And the only reason why 45 u. S. Republican u. S. Senators have decided to latch on to this argument that the text of the constitution and the weight of history opposes is because theyre afraid. They dont want to face up to what they have to deal with here, what their duties require them to deal with here, which is, a president of the United States that did the worst thing that any president ever has done or could do which is to try to endd constitutional democracy in the United States of america. W yeah. That point, right, we have now seen these different process arguments but those are all nt reverse engineered around the desire to not engage with the conduct and thats the through line throughout which is why you get everyone twisting o themselves in these knots. Right. The senate should know better because the senate, the reason why we are here today as opening points out is because the senate specifically all the republicans except for romney failed to do their duty last time around at the last trial that ended a year ago last week. They failed veto hear witnesses about an outrageous effort by st the president of the United States to extort, use the president ial power over Security Assistance to ukraine to try to extort an announcement of ukraine of a fake investigation of joe biden and his son and as you point out its cheating and the reason we are here today is they blew that off because they just decided, oh, it doesnt matter. Doesnt matter. It doesnt matter. It does matter because he is who he is. He did what he did because thats who he is. Ha he was corrupt and doesnt believe in democracy. He only believes in whats in his on best interest and that is exactly that was that metastasized in november and the last two months after that ending on january 6th with people dying on capitol hill with an insurrection that he fomented to stop the counts of votes against him. N whats particularly galling is he when you say metastasized, recruited senators into the effort. When you see ted cruz saying les the people decide back a year ago, right, were having an election. The people decided and ted cruz didnt like or josh hawley and voted to overturn the people. Absolutely. The whole argument of the first impeachment is who are wed to substitute our judgment for the people and when the people voted they tried to substitute the judgment. Le trump didnt just start doing that on november 4th or midnight november 4th. He was trying to undermine the election for months previous to that because he knew he was losing, and he was basically saying at one point he said lets postpone the election even though the text of the constitution says you cant do v that. He was continually attacking thn mechanisms of democracy saying if i lose it is going to be because the election is stolen. This was all premed dated. And when you look at the he has this flimsy First Amendment defense. It isnt about speech. Im sure floyd abrams will tell you about this later. Its not about speech, its about his entire course of conduct trying to destroy democracy and not protected by the First Amendment and ro impeachment isnt covered by the First Amendment. I have to read you this section of the pretrial brief, which is just so batty from the trump lawyers, and i guess in their defense this is a rush job, but they say in referring to the house managerr brief with what happened on thah day, they say in a brazen attempt to further glorify violence the house managers took several pags of memorandum and over 50 media reports detailing the incidents and shocking hours. What does that mean . The reason its sensational is we saw it on tv and 100 senators saw it on tv and 435 members of the house saw it on television. Yeah. It was sensational and it happened. Theres no dispute it happened. Wheres the conservative legal universe on this . You referenced chuck cooper, who is a very wellknown and established conservative lawyer. He has this wall street journal oped, and the wall street journal tends to be a conservative editorial page, so this seemed to be like speaking to fellow members of the tribe as it were. Ak i just think that the weight of evidence in law here isnt on the president s side on this and the conduct itself is bad and just curious if you polled the people in your world of sort of big deal conservative practitioners and jurists like what they think about this. Yeah. I think that chuck coopers oped is emblematic of where everybody is. He was an assistant attorney general in the reagan administration. He was shepherded, he was Jeff Sessions adviser in the sessions confirmation hearing, john boltons lawyer, a member of the Federalist Society for decades. He clearly gets it. That this was the most lawless thing any president has done. And the fact of the matter is that the former president doesnt have a good legal argument. Theres professor calabrese who signed at least two opeds that ive seen that says President Trump should be convicted, not just impeached, but convicted. I have seen statements joined by charles fried, the reagan solicitor r general, and others that issued a statement and you hear virtually nothing on the other side and i think that speaks volumes. N the fundamental thing is that the conservative lawyers do believe in the rule of law and though many probably stayed too quiet the last four years, theres no question that theyve seen more than enough. And the conservative judges who are among the 60 courts that ruled against donald trump, wera against tried to protect the rule of law as well. George conway, thank you so much for making time tonight. Appreciate it. Thank you. Te next, does trumps free speech argument have any standing . When youve got a business, you dont want to worry about slow internet or confusing cybersecurity. So get comcast Business Internet with fast, reliable speeds, and add the advanced security of comcast business securityedge. It combines the speed you need with threat protection. Plus theres 24 7 support. Its internet and advanced security made simple. So bounce forward with comcast business. Get started with a powerful internet and voice solution for just 64. 90 a month. And ask how to add comcast business securityedge. Call today. Impeachment trial, donald j. Trump says trumps lawyers are offering an exercise to the First Amendment right under the constitution to express his belief that the Election Results were suspect. It is an exceedingly weak defense. You dont need lawyers to tell you that but 144 constitutional lawyers did just sign a letter saying, quote, any First Amendment defense raised by President Trumps attorneys were legally frivolous. One of the lawyer who is signed that letter is floyd abrams, arguably the preeminent First Amendment lawyer in the country. And citizens united, remember a First Amendment case in the Landmark Campaign finance case, and hes the author of the soul of the First Amendment and many other books. Its great to have you on. Why did you feel motivated to write this letter . I usually dont write letters saying the First Amendment does not apply. This was a situation in which i and all the other professors and scholars thought it was frivolous to maintain that the First Amendment protected President Trump with respect to his impeachment at all and with respect to the facts of this case. The letter reads that the First Amendment doesnt apply to impeachment proceedings and cannot provide a defense for President Trump. Why does it not apply in an impeachment proceeding . It doesnt apply because there are lots of things that a president or any of us can do that are protected by the First Amendment and can still lead to impeachment. Suppose the president ran around burning an American Flag saying i have no intention to protect the people of the United States, he took an oath to preserve and protect and defend the constitution. If he starts saying i wont do it, if he starts saying im not loyal, to pick that example, of course he could be impeached. You also say that his speech and conduct around january 6th constitute unprotected incitement and this is a deeper level of analysis. The first point about the First Amendment not applying makes sense. My favorite example is inviting china to invade. If the president said i think we would be better off if china invaded us. You should do that. Right. Which again if someone wrote that, if someone wrote that and the state tried to sanction them you as their lawyer would rightly say thats outrageous this is First Amendment protected speech. But a president saying its another thing but the incitement that seems dicier ground First Amendment wise. You write the president s speech constitutes unprotected incitement. What do you mean by that . I mean that when the president started out for some time falsely saying that the election had been stolen, tells people to go to washington, and tells them it will be wild when they get there, gives a speech to them leading them to go to the capitol, telling them to go to the capitol, telling them they have to be strong and not weak, telling them theyll lose the country, the country will be lost to them unless they win this, when you add all the Different Things up he said and the context in which he said it, he was inciting them, not only to go but to do something. And the only thing that they could do in that circumstance that would fit what he was saying was the sort of violence that we saw. Its i feel like incitement is a difficult it could be a difficult category and the First Amendment protections are really important in this in terms of this but it is striking to me that you think it fits the bill. The pattern of behavior, the speech and what happened culminating fitting a small target i would imagine you see. Absolutely, absolutely. All of us, 144 people, we all love the First Amendment, and we all write articles generally saying it ought to be expanded and taken more seriously. But in a situation in which the totality of what donald trump did, the totality of what he said amounted to a cry for them to take action, not just have views and not just attend, not just go to the capitol, but to be strong and to do this and to do that and you will lose your country unless you what . I think the what is very logically the violence that we saw. Lloyd abrams, a real legendary advocate for the First Amendment. A great pleasure to have you on, sir. Thank you very much. Thank you. Good to see you. I want to turn to congresswoman Sheila Jackson lee of texas, had to be rushed to an undisclosed location and joins me now. Congresswoman, can you hear me . Yes, i can. Can you see me . I can see you. Youre someone who i think was an early you identified the president s chief antagonism towards free and Fair Elections quite early on. And i wonder what you make of this us arriving at this point now fourplus years into it. Chris, because of my tenure and the background that i have, i have seen now four impeachment proceedings including one of a judge. And it was evident as the election proceeded in 2016 that this campaign and this president and this person, donald j. Trump, had an irreverence, not a reverence for democracy, law and order, respect, dignity and he carried that through the campaign right into the United States presidency. That was evidenced by his reckless engagement with russia, inviting the russian ambassador, if you will, to the white house by leaking classified information, by getting into fights with people of different racial backgrounds, insulting black caucus members and other members of congress, just irreverent. And he was clearly not someone who was lincolnesque, not a respecter of democracy and continued as evidenced by the actions with ukraine and the blatant discussion with the president of ukraine what you can do for me. That led, of course, to his prediction. He predicted he might not allow a peaceful transfer of power. He was asked several times during the campaign, and he was glib and never precise, never admitted that he adhered to the law and order of this nation and he was right. And he proceeded for months after november to talk about the election was stolen. He clearly became an insurrectionist president. Im curious how you and your house colleagues see the trial now obviously the managers will be doing it. I get a feeling Democratic Senators feel like they have a narrow majority, a country in crisis, a fullplate agenda, they feel they have to do this but they want to move through it quickly. How do you feel . Fist of all, i view the house managers at patriots. They have the experience so many of us have. Trial lawyers, knowing the constitution, some are from the Judiciary Committee and others are from relevant and important committees. They are patriots. Theyre simply trying to do their duty on behalf of the American People and see it in this way and this question. What kind of nation do we want to live in . I think that is the question that the jurists who themselves could be considered victims as i might be considered one in the chamber. I had a particular experience. We were in essence locked down where we could not escape for a period of time. We actually heard the tormenters, the terrorists, the insurrectionists banging up against that central door where they came from the United States senate. We saw four armed police officers, plains clothes with drawn guns as there was a loud bang and heard the shooting sadly of the young woman on another end of the house. They did not penetrate, but we heard that. We are either victims or witnesses by way of video. And i ask myself the question, and the jurists should ask themselves what nation do we choose to live in and show to the world and what nation to show to show the children. The second question, how seriously do we take the oath to swear to defend this nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Did he watch and enjoy . We pleaded with him to please have the individuals draw down. We proceeded with him as did the mayor of the great city of washington, d. C. To place in advance the national guard. Members of congress were on the cell phones calling different states. One of them was maryland, please send the national guard. The response was, as soon as i get the word. Obviously the commander in chief had to give the word. So my position would be on this, there is a constitutional argument thats bogus. We have had individuals no longer in office and we have both impeached them and convicted them for crimes in this case, high crimes and misdemeanors and the argue evidenced by the president that he intended to bring down democracy and he was there to bring it down. What do we say to the world . My question, what kind of nation do we live in or we want the world to know we live in if we do not hold him accountable . He has a right to his defense. I think its excellent that he has defense counsel to present his defense, thats democracy. Thats the way our legal system works. We as patriots are bringing forward our case as anyone would do, as i would do. And its up to the jurors right now to hand over a sentence of guilty or not guilty and they have to choose both their heart, this concept of conscience, this Historical Perspective of president s of some 44, 45 president s including President Trump. You have to ask the question, has any other president , no matter whether theyve been impeached of not been charged with insurrection and tearing down the government. Thank you so much. Thank you for your time tonight. Thank you for having me. Ahead, how far will republicans go to retain power . The partys radicalization against democracy will probably only get worse after this. On the eve of this firstever second impeachment trial heres the central story in person politics the Republican Party is radicalizing against democracy. We saw it with trump, with the enablers in congress but heres the weird part of that. The other story about the Republican Party is that its moderating on policy. Josh hawley goes from calling for 2,000 checks the trying to overturn an election. The paradox, the central message between these two is in an essay that i just published today and its to me the defining story of the biden administration. Two people that following the parties, Mckay Kauffman whose most recent piece is the coming republican amnesia, and Jennifer Ruben who has a piece today headlined the gop is not a normal party, and they both join us now. What do you think about this frame work radicalizing against democracy and weirdly moderating in a lot of places on policy . It is really interesting. It is clearly true and i think theres no better and more recent signal of this than the fact that mitt romney who ran in 2010 and the party standarder tl conservative is proposing welfare payments to alleviate child poverty. This is a policy that not only would mitt romney and paul ryan have scoffed at in 2012 the majority of the Republican Party would have balked at. But whats interesting about that, setting aside people like mitt romney, the majority of the Republican Party is becoming more radical on questions that were not previously seen as up for debate anymore. Questions about democracy and should somebody who wins a president ial election assume the presidency. Whats strange, your essay was great and what struck me about it was that as the policy differences as the parties start to shrink and theres still big policy differences but as they get smaller you would think that Neither Party has as much incentive to throw democracy out the window to try to win but instead you have the Republican Party busting all these democratic norms to try to win and it is because i think as you rightly point out is it is not really about policy for a lot of the Republican Party, its about whos in charge, who gets to rule. Who gets to rule. Thats the core debate. Yeah. The mitt romney plan is 3,000 per child which is remarkable. Good policy. People can read about it. Theres democratic versions of various iterations. To me this question of who rules, jennifer, has become so central, central in both directions. Its central in all democratic politics, people want to feel like they have power and control, but it also seems central to the exclusion of other things in the Republican Party in a way thats really striking. It is. I would only say this to pick on mckays point and may be giving the republicans too much credit in saying their poliies have moderated. Unfortunately mitt romney is not in the Republican Party. I wish he was. Those kind of republicans absolutely are moderating, but the rest of them and this is to your immediate question, they really arent in the business of doing anything. What do they believe in . Aside from the ten republicans who went to the white house with a smallish to tiny plan for rescue, the republicans dont believe in anything right now. They dont believe that politics is a transactional business. Its all about identity. The need to control power is because they convinced without it theyre doomed. Western civil investigation is doomed and white christianity is doomed unless they hold power so it is no longer act policies at all. Its simply about inflaming the base and making their own election a prerequisite of the continuation of life as they know it in america for their base. As i noted in the essay, part of that again, maybe im giving too much credit theres a core that isnt wrong. When rallygoers look at the commanding heights of American Culture are not ruled by people like them. You cant vote out the New York Times oped writer, or the College Professor or people that write the ads like that, you dont like that and this is the venue for power is politics to get those people. And this is whats so interesting, right . The story of the four years, ten years in a lot of ways is that liberals have consolidated cultural power while conservatives have consolidated political power, right . Just at the national level, at the state legislative level. You look across the country. But what conservatives i think rightly understood is that political power is fleeting. You get into this in your essay as well. We are at a moment when the parties are going back and forth in terms of control of congress and the white house, this is fairly unprecedented if you look at american history. But holding on to political power only lasts so long, and so conservatives are feeling, you know, uneasy. Theyre feeling nervous about the fact they dont have cultural power, and its why they end up losing a lot of the big debates over things like gay marriage or the war in iraq when the issues are being litigated where they dont have the influence. They try to respond by accumulating more political power, and, to your point, feeling like they have to hold on to it by whatever means necessary. Jennifer, do you think theres room forward out of this sort of vice the republicans seem trapped in now . Well, they dont think so and why they think the courts are the end all and the be all. They want to attain power in the cultural wars. They have to decide if they believe in democracy and politics is about serving the people or a spasm and temper tantrum and i think the temper tantrum set is in control. Mckay, jennifer, thank you both for making time tonight. Appreciate it. Ahead, what we know about the rapid spread of the uk covid strain in america and why dr. Fauci is still optimistic. My body is truly powerful. I have the power to lower my a1c. Because my body can still make its own insulin. And trulicity activates my body to release it, lowering my blood sugar from the first dose. Onceweekly trulicity responds when my body needs it, 24 7. Trulicity is for type 2 diabetes. Its not insulin. It isnt for people with type 1 diabetes. Dont take trulicity if youre allergic to it, you or your family have medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. Stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have an allergic reaction, a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, changes in vision, or diabetic retinopathy. Serious side effects may include pancreatitis. Taking trulicity with sulfonylurea or insulin raises low blood sugar risk. Side effects include indigestion, fatigue, belly pain, decreased appetite, nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting which can lead to dehydration and may worsen kidney problems. I have it within me to lower my a1c. Ask your doctor about trulicity. Back in april, we were in the height of the first wave of the pandemic in new york city when the country was shocked by images of bodies piling up in overwhelmed funeral homes. The epicenter. Prisoners of Rikers Island burying victims and others in mass graves on harkers island. At that point, april of last year, early in this, around 2,000 americans were dying from the virus per day. And at that time senator schumer and congresswoman alexandria ocasiocortez went to the hard hit neighborhood of queens, new york to call for the Trump Administration to pay for funerals for families that could not afford them. We discussed the call on this program at the time. Knowing the Trump Administration refusing to cover the costs despite the federal government helping held pay for funerals of past disaster victims, like those affected by Hurricane Katrina and super storm sandy. Releasing the money seemed like a nobrainer. Families were absolutely desperate. The Trump Administration refused. It went out of the way to block the money from going out. And then in december, lawmakers passed a covid relief bill with 2 billion for funding for covid funeral expenses, specifically earmarked for that purpose. In december, 4,000 americans died daily distributed around the country, the problem twice as bad and the trump the Trump Administration still did nothing to get that money out the door. Donald trump is no longer president. Today schumer and alexandria ocasiocortez returned to queens to announce that lowincome americans can soon apply for up to 7,000 to cover the cost of covidrelated funeral expenses. I lost my dad when i was about 18 years old, and the funeral expenses haunted and followed by family and many other families in a similar position for years. When you suddenly lose a love one youre talking about an expense of 4,000, 5,000, 7,000. Then during covid with overrun funeral, et cetera, families are having the pay for the storage of their own loved ones. The program through fema will cover funerals, its retroactive and democrats are trying to up it in 2021 as part of the covid relief package. As aoc noted undocumented families will be eligible to apply. The country has not yet began to reckon with that loss, but this is one small thing the government can do to bring a small amount of relief to families, something the government wasnt doing due to the cruelty of the people running it. And its very, very good to see that change. When you switch to xfinity mobile, youre choosing to get connected to the most Reliable Network nationwide, now with 5g included. Discover how to save up to 300 a year with shared data starting at 15 a month, or get the lowest price for one line of unlimited. Come into your local xfinity store to make the most of your mobile experience. You can shop the latest phones, bring your own device, or trade in for extra savings. Stop in or book an appointment to shop safely with peace of mind at your local xfinity store. Its a bit of a deja vu feeling right now, the pandemic, in a worrying way. Almost a full year ago there was a feeling of dread the virus which was ravaging parts of china and europe, could explode in the u. S. , which it did. Now theres a similar feeling around the variants. The virus first found in the uk is doubling every ten days. Theres concern from the cdc it could be the predominant strain in the u. S. By march, although, as dr. Fauci noted in todays covid briefing the Pfizer Vaccines are effective against that strain. Then theres also the south african strain, and officials are concerned about data showing astrazenecas vaccine, not yet approved in the u. S. , might not be effective against that variant. The writer of inside the worsthit country in the worsthit country joins me now. 1 to 10, one being everything is easy breezy and were in good shape and 10 is im panicked, where are you on the variants right now . Im at a 7. Im worried. Im worried. Im not yet pulling the screaming alarm bell. That said, you know, you described the doubling every ten days. It was less than 1 just a few weeks ago. Florida its up to 10 . You essentially see this picture where the Coronavirus Vaccine is scaling upward, you have hospitalizations with the wild version that we the virus that we have had going down. But then you have this virus climbing and climbing upward. It is more contagious. It is we have an effective vaccine, but the challenge is getting people to keep their foot on the brakes to stop this from spreading. Masks work. Our distancing policies work. But if we let up on this because were feeling good about where we are, then we will land back in the soup again. Yeah. To me it just seems like theres this question of, are we going to have one more big awful destructive curve in this country . Right . And that when we think about that, that means thats the amount of human misery, destruction between having that or not, and its just an open question. And part of it depends on the vaccine. I mean, the trajectory seems good 2 million a day, were averaging 1. 5 million. Weve hit 2 million. Do you think we have it in us to get to 3 million in the foreseeable future . I do think that the Vaccine Distribution is going to be going up, but its not going keep up fast enough with the strains. What makes me more optimistic is over the last month weve gotten the entire country up above 80 face mask usage. We have big parts of the country where its over 90 . I wrote about north dakota where it was negligible six months ago. Now at, you know, 89 mask usage. The key issue, can we keep our foot on the brakes . And, you know, the story again and again is that we have these battles, we are riven as a country coming together. The story isnt about one group of people who dont care versus another who dont care, this is a story about people desperate to have freedom again. They have had a year with their kids not in schools. They have been without, you know, restaurant and bars are laying off people. That pain many people on one side feel theyre not hearing, people about other side feel theyre not hearing each other. We have to find a way to keep pushing through and arguing with each other, get the brakes on. The report on north dakota was fascinating. And partly, just that divide. But also the fact that people eventually, people do change their behavior. Its one of the lessons here. Like, you see enough people around you who get sick and die, that wins out in the end. It just happens too late to prevent stuff, but that is what happens in the end everywhere. And for the most part, the measures stick because people have seen how bad it is. You know, its interesting on the flip side, we have now this argument with teachers about saying, hey, schools are safe. Why arent you going back . And this is the same sets of concerns. Do we hear each other well enough and can we manage this conflict your earlier segment was, can this not be a war to the death but instead a debate, a fight. Yes, the votes are taken, and then we move forward and are able to move in a decisive direction. You saw north dakota. They did ultimately come together. But, you know, at any moment, the foot can come off of the brakes. Yeah, thats the big fear. Gosh, we all feel it during this covid winter. You said bars and restaurants. I was like, gosh, that sounds nice. Thank you very much for your time tonight. Thank you. Thats it for all in this monday night. The Rachel Maddow show starts now. Good evening. Thank you, my friend. Much appreciated. Thanks for joining us this hour. Happy to have you hear we have a lot to get to. The leader of the congressional caucus is here tonight. Help th people are going to get from the covid relief bill. The fight is on, frankly, among democrats right now, as to just how big they are going to go on that, in terms of trying to help people. Congresswoman jayapal holds a lot of the cards in that fight as chair of the progressive caucus. Were going to hear from her in a second about her strategy and her thinking and why she and her colleagues are really insisting that the covid relief bill is, among other things, the right place and the right time and the right way to push a raise in the minimum wage. The minimum wage has not gone up in this country in 12 years. President biden says hes committed to raising the minimum wage, but he has also publicly is