buddies and allies to overturn the 2020 election. as we reported on this program at this hour yesterday, mark short, he s of course the former chief of staff to former vice president mike pence, testified before a d.c. grand jury last week. now according to new multiple reports, we also know that a second senior pence aide also testified. that would be greg jacob, pence s legal counsel. both men, of course, had a front row seat to the extraordinary pressure campaign on mike pence by trump and his allies, people like john eastman, to get pence to stop the certification of president joe biden s election victory on january 6th. wall street journal reports these stunning details about their testimony. quote, one area of interest to prosecutors was a january 4th, 2021, oval office meeting where conservative lawyer john eastman pushed pence in trump s presence to either reject the electoral votes outright or suspend the proceedings and asked several state legislatures to re-examine
trump that obeys the law and doesn t curse and doesn t grab women. the way to dislodge a bumper sticker in there. yeah. exactly. i think it s too long for a bumper sticker. i will campaign on it though. the only way to dislodge is somebody trump-like who takes him down as someone who was willing to overturn our democracy to win an election. as matt said, that to me that s the foundational thing. you can t have a party system in a democracy where one party is willing to overturn the democracy to win an election. we talked about this on the show before. the constitution, the framers wanted to protect minority rights. but they didn t want minority rule. it s a majority rule country. that s what democracy means. nevertheless you mentioned the judge that trump is an
improvements will be made. that s not unusual. a lot of members who voted for the senate bill figured there would be changes made to that as well. a lot, very often, when legislation happens, is at the end here, when the house and senate are negotiating our two bills. that s the way the founding fathers envisioned it. in many instances and in many ways this debate is exactly the way the founding fathers evennation dollars it, except in one important case, for months and month, we were thinking you had to have 60 votes in the house, so we had to make compromises, the senators have put in their pet projects. now that we re back to a majority rule congress and majority rule country, i think the bill is going to wind up being much better. megyn: but going the reconciliation route, where the senate is asked to go back, because right now they could let you and the house pass the bill and sit back and say yes, we have the bill passed, you re saying you go through this normally, but normally t
solve this health care problem, the least of our concerns is going to be making minor language in choice language. the real issue is going to be how this policy is bankrupting the american people. if we don t solve health care, none of this other stuff is going to matter because our economy will be at a standstill. harris: before i get you go, i want to cover one more point of ground. you say the way it works, when somebody is against this, a filibuster, some of your colleagues on your side of the aisle fear that, they don t want to see a filibuster, so they re willing to go with this reconciliation vote. you say don t fear a filibuster. why? well, first of all, this isn t about we re at a majority rule country since our founding fathers created the constitution of the united states. we ve never been a 60 percent to get anything done country aid think we ve country and i think we ve got to move forward. the american people understand that. they ve been asking why the special deal
get back to the doctor/patient relationship. there s nothing in there that does just that. anthony, why is it that you have a public option that is supported by 55% of americans and a lot of other elements in this bill that is supported by a large chunk of the american people but you look at the overall bill and it s maybe 40%. for a couple reasons is there s been a whole element of our political spectrum lying about the bill saying things it s not. we went through a period of death panels and how people s insurance will disappear. every single person you interview this morning, their insurance won t be touched one bit by this plan because people have insurance that will be allowed to keep it. the other thing is i think we as democrats and the president has taken responsibility for this have not been very clear about exactly what it is we re trying to do. there s a third reason. we have watered this down on the alter of 60 votes something that senator crist writes about today. this