federal courts for alabama redistricting could have huge implications for the control of congress, went all in starts, right now. good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes this evening. one of the leaders of the far-right gang the proud boys a guy by the name of enrique tarrio, received the longest and harshest sentence to date for attempting to end american democracy and the rule of law. 22 years in federal prison. tarrio was convicted of seditious conspiracy for his role in the insurrection. that sentence, which we got just a few hours ago, is the most severe sentence of the more than 1100 people charged in connection with a january 6th attacks. in court today the proud boys leader says that january six was a, quote, national embarrassment, for the judge was not moved, saying, quote, i don't have any indication he's remorseful for the things he's convicted of. the judge went on to say that tarrio was, quote, the ultimate leader, the ultimate person who hogue organized, who was motivated by revolutionary zeal. that conspiracy ended up with about 200 men amped up for a battle in circling the capitol. one tarrio's previous statement regarding dominic pezzola to george washington the judge said, quote, it slanders the father of our country to speak that way. federal prosecutors wanted over three decades in prison for enrique tarrio. they wanted 33 years. instead he will now face the next two decades behind bars. he is the last of the proud boys convicted of seditious conspiracy to be that sentenced. last week three other proud boys were found guilty of seditious conspiracy were received 15 to 18 years sentences. something to note here, tarrio wasn't even at the capitol on january 6th. in fact he was in the hotel room in baltimore. he was arrested two days before january six on charges that had nothing to do with the insurrection. prosecutors said tarrio new ahead of time he was going to be arrested through a contact at the washington d. c. police force, which is interesting. and he, quote, strategically calculated his arrest as a means to inspire early by his followers. as the prosecutors pointed out, the fact that he spent most of jerry six at a hotel, quote, there's nothing to distract from the severity of his conduct, because he was a general rather than a soldier. in fact, the jarry six committee, in its investigation, devoted a good amount of time in the hearings detailing the role of the proud boys and trying to topple the rightful government through mob violence and intimidation. >> what do you want to call them? give me a name. >> white supremacists? >> the proud boys, stand back, and stand by. >> after he made this comment, enrique tarrio, then chairman of the proud boys, said on parlor, standing by, sir. then we learned this common during the presidential debate actually led to an increase in membership for the proud boys. >> when you see the proud boys members increased after these stand-up standby clement? >> exponentially. i'd say tripled, probably. >> with the potential for a lot more, eventually? >> did you sell any stand back and stand by merchandise? >> one of the vendors on my page beat me to it. but i wish i would have. i wish i would've made a stand back stand by shirt. >> under san bernardino, trump tweeted about the january 6th rally. he said be, there it'll be wild. many witnesses came to d. c. for january six, but the extremists took it a step further. they view this tweet is a call to arms. >> select committee member of congress jerry raskin said how a leader of the oath keepers declared an alliance with the proud boys just hours after trump's tweet understand 19th, 2020. >> phone records obtained by the select committee show that later that afternoon, mr. joe biggs khan plow boys leader enrique tarrio and they spoke for several minutes. the very next day the proud boys got to work. >> the proud boys launched encrypted chat called the ministry of self-defense. the committee obtained hundreds of these messages, which show strategic and tactical planning about january 6th, including maps of washington d. c. that pinpoint the location of police. in the weeks leading up to the attack, leaders and both the proud boys and the oath keepers worked with trump allies. >> donald trump is slated to head to trial in march for his role in the attempted coup. tarrio, 39 years, old will spend the next 22 years behind bars for trying to carry out a conspiracy to steal the election, overthrow the government, and keep trump in power. attorney general merrick garland released a statement saying, quote, the leader of the proud boys, enrique tarrio, one of the consequences of conspiring to oppose by force the lawful transfer of presidential power is 22 years in federal prison. tom jacqueline is a reporter for the washington post. he's at the courthouse for the sentencing and he joins me now. tom, take us inside today. i was getting dispatches from some of the reporters in the media room from the reporters watching the proceedings. it seemed like the judge had a lot to say. >> it was four hours. it made up in the new world records for one of the longest sentencings in these cases. a judge did have a lot to say. a lot of talking went on, not by him, so here is his chance to say i don't think this guy feel sorry about what he did. as you mentioned earlier, did tarrio stand up and say i apologize to law enforcement. i apologize to the people of washington d. c., the people of law enforcement are heroes. and the people of washington didn't deserve to have their city turned upside down. and after he was done in the judge said, i think we're talking past each other. i don't think i've heard any remorse from this guy. he is not addressing the whole seditious conspiracy thing, which he didn't. >> that's striking and we had the news last week of dominic pezzola who said he was sorry, that it was a mistake, i think even he might have shed a tear or two. >> he cried a lot. >> he cried a lot, and once it was done, after he had his ten year sentence he yelled, trump won. we also have joseph biggs, on info wars. we want to play him to, because it gives you a sense of the preamble to this judge deciding to take their time. this is joseph bags on info wars saturday calling for a pardon. >> i know your pardon. i believe that with all my heart. the thing is, it's hopefully getting him, for him to be able to get in a position where he can at least be, i think, on the ballot to run. >> you have one minute remaining. >> but i do believe that donald j trump will pardon us. and he should. we don't do anything. were his supporters. we went there like he asked. >> we don't do anything. i wonder, i mean you can't read the mind, but that was an interesting context, given what the judge decided to do today. >> did you hear that recording that said you have one minute remaining? that's the recording you get when someone calls collect from jail. you only have one minute left for that interview. these people have been waiting for trump to save them for a long time, and they may be waiting a lot longer, but that's definitely their last best hope. but in the meantime, they're gonna be spending time in prison. biggs got 17 years. he was on the front lines that day, with a bull horn, directing people through the police into the capitol. >> tom jackman who was there at the sentencing today, thank you very much. you're >> very welcome. >> danya perry is a former prosecutor of the southern district of new york where she served and deputy chief of the criminal division. a scott bolden, former prosecutor and now white-collar defense attorney. let me stay on this theme with you, danya. it was such a striking moment last week when pezzola says i'm so sorry and then says trump won. tarrio didn't even really seem to try to perform remorse. law enforcement are heroes, the city of d. c. that may have deserve to have their city chewed up like this. it was a national embarrassment. all those could be true and say nothing about i was trying to attempt in the peaceful transfer of power. and it does seem like that may have played a role in the sentencing. >> there's always a needle to thread and a fountain thing for a defendant who has been convicted at trial by a jury. they don't want to admit too much because they are banking on appeal, or perhaps the pardon. >> [laughter] they can say whatever they want if they want a pardon. >> and he probably chose wrong and that's what he's going for. so they have to choose their words relatively carefully. but i think in this case the judge saw right through it. in fact, the prosecution anticipated that he would give the appearance of remorse without actually being remorseful. they pointed to precedent where he expressed regret but wasn't truly and then went back at it with the same thing. so i think they drew the staying unanticipated that. and the judge had none of it. it was very clear. >> even though this is the longest sentence and 22 years, which is the record now, it's still 11 years below what the government was asking for. they had asked for this terrorism enhanced mint, basically, in the sentencing, and judge kelly, who had previous requests for a terrorism enhancement, says he doesn't think this was the same to the terrorism, or it doesn't fit what that enhanced means should cover. he basically did that again today. these are very stiff sentences. but i'm curious about your reaction to that. >> he has been playing it down the line. the terrorism enhanced mint, i thought he gave tarrio to 22 years, to get the enhancement, he has enhanced its time in some other prior cases but here's the deal. this was the general of the proud boys. i love the but for a test. but for the proud boys in the oath keepers the violence and the deaths that took place on january six and the attack on democracy and the attempt to get to elected officials to stop the transfer of power, none of this would've happened without the planning and execution of the proud boys and maybe the oath keepers. they didn't matter that tarrio wasn't there, he was the mastermind behind, and all of those thousands of migrant followers that attacked the capital, remember, they went in after the proud boys and after the oath keepers and i think the judge had that in mind, and the judge said i'm not convinced, especially if you try to compare yourself to george washington. they really believe they were in a revolutionary time in there are gonna change democracy like this. it made no sense. it was bordered on the nonsensical, and now they're serving time for it. >> the point is an important one, because you have two people, stewart rhodes, head of the oath keepers, also convicted of seditious conspiracy, doing 6 to 17 years i think with the sentence. he also did never breach the capitol. in tarrio's case he wasn't even in washington d. c., he had been picked up on a gun charge. obviously donald trump is not facing seditious conspiracy charges from jack smith. but there's something to the idea that you are legally culpable and can be legally culpable for the violence operationally without ever actually going into the capitol. that's now quite well established in these two cases. >> absolutely. it proves the point. you see it all the time in your everyday case. and we certainly see it here. and judges are required to have some kind of proportionality to sentencing. if you could map them out on a graph you would have the leaders getting more time. he was almost no way the judge was going to ever issue a sentence of 33 years. it was going to be at least as much as the other leaders, the oath keepers, as you say, but it wasn't going to be anywhere near that. that would be disproportionate and disappointed. here you can anticipate if the former president is convicted, yes the charges are different, yes the terrorism enhanced but might not apply, but a judge will take it very seriously, just like the other guest just said, this is a but for situation. as many people have said. and as the prosecutor said. the former president lit the flame. these guys with the gasoline. that likely will, if there is when this trial happens, we'll see what the appeals look like, but at some point the judge will factor all of these other sentences into consideration. >> to the point that tom jackman was making earlier from the washington post about judge kelly taking his time and saying his piece, this is his trial and he has had multiple people who have come before him for sentencing. but it is always interesting, scott, when a judge, who is the impartial arbiter, converts into essayist, polemicists, whatever they are, in the sentencing phase where they get to vent how they actually feel about this entire thing the wind down in front of them. >> they are the fact finder and they draw conclusions of law. they listened to all the evidence, and then they're gonna give you their take. one of the important things about the sentencing, whether he gave the terrorism enhancement or not, federal judges and state judges can take everything into account, whether a prior bad act, whether prior statements. he puts it all in the mix and says i'm going to sentence you to 22 years, and here is why. he's going to make a record just in case there's an appeal, and that's important for the prosecution and defense. i think he did a nice job. he could've given a more, especially because it was an attack on democracy, but again, being consistent with prior sentencing, very important to the future defendants in that courthouse. >> it does seem to me, having covered both of these trials for two different federal judges, that by and large these were severe but reasonable penalties that were handed down by judges in these cases. >> yeah. the prosecution asked for a lot more, for 33 years, they got 22. that's not unusual at all. sometimes they go for the moon shot and take what they get. here the defense wasn't asking, i think they're asking for 15 or last. so i think they had a sense of where this particular defendant would fall out. the judge really kind of hit it exactly where the other ones shook out. >> we find ourselves with the two top tier violent groups that are organized and fomented the violence, a but for lincoln the classical chain, as scott said, having been tried by a jury of their peers, found guilty, sentenced, there are some other outstanding work to be done in terms of people a level above them, danya perry, a. scott bolden, thank you both. coming up, charged with trade over through the 2020 election right alongside donald trump. i speak not in the proud boys but new reporting suggests 18 georgia codefendant in that rico case may not be willing to go down with the ship. latest reporting from fulton county, next. nice footwork. man, you're lucky, watching live sports never used to be this easy. now you can stream all your games like it's nothing. yes! [ cheers ] yeah! woho! running up and down that field looks tough. it's a pitch. get way more into what you're into when you stream on the xfinity 10g network. i may be known for my legendary football career, but truth is, i love a bunch of sports. the only trouble is knowing where to find them. that's why i got xfinity. so, i can easily find and watch whatever sport i'm into all in one place without missing a thing. even if it's football, australian football, or football football. in a word—it's fitz-credible. i got to trademark that one. this season, eligible xfinity rewards members can get up to $100 off nfl sunday ticket from youtube. sign up for xfinity rewards now. >> one by one, all 19 defendants indicted in georgia over the attempt to steal the 2020 election have now entered pleas of not guilty, waiving the right to an arraignment in court ahead of tomorrow's deadline. one theme that has emerged since the sweeping indictment came in is the likelihood that not all 19 defendants will face trial. that's because some of them are likely to plead guilty in exchange for cooperating with prosecution. that would make sense for a lot of these people, people who don't have the resources or the fame of donald trump to shield them from what might be coming, a possible conviction and prison time. we're already seeing multiple defendants creating a narrative that their efforts to overturn the election were at donald trump's request, acording to a politico report today. take mark meadows. in last week's attempt to move his case into federal court, georgia secretary of state brad raffensperger testified about that infamous phone call where trump pressured him to find 11,780 votes. the lawyer for meadows said to raffensperger, quote, there was a lot of statements by mr. trump. but mr. meadows speaking roles were quite limited. the lawyer continued, he didn't make any requests that you change vote totals, mr. meadows himself? to which raffensperger replied, correct. in other words, like i didn't do it. he was just there playing trump. we don't know whether the judge will agree to move the meadows case to federal court, police three other defendants, the fake electors charged in the rico indictments are making the same request for removal. tomorrow a judge will hold a hearing on the request by kenneth chesebro and sidney powell to sever each of their cases from all the other defendants and then today chesebro made a further filing to dismiss all the charges against him, arguing his alleged conduct was covered by federal law so he cannot be prosecuted under georgia state law. if all that sounds like the georgia case is getting a bit confusing and chaotic, you are right. the daily beast reporting, and trump and his lieutenants in the scheme to overturn the 2020 election are pulling the local district attorney in all directions, chaos that can quickly shift the power dynamics in the coming days. could that shift in favor of trump or his codefendants or the district attorney, there's a lot happening at once. we'll talk about all of it, next. next >> ever since the sweeping rico indictment in georgia of donald trump and 18 others three weeks ago, the number of separate court movements continues to mount. someone to sever their cases from the other defendants. some want a speedy trial. someone both. some, like mark meadows, want to move the case to federal court. as the daily beast is reporting, the conflicting emotions are pulling district attorney fani willis in all sorts of directions. over the coming days, though, we might get a clear idea of how this case will go and how all 19 will be tried together in fulton county courtroom as willis says she wants, or not. amy lee copeland is a criminal defense appellate attorney faced based in georgia. she served as appellate chief in the sacred southern district of georgia. anna bower's been covering e the case very closely. both join me now. can we start. there's a lot to get to hear. can we just take a second on chesebro. this is a strange senate procedural do just so that i am confused about. he files for a speedy trial, says bring it on, and willis says okay, we're ready for you. october 23rd, i want to have my case alone, today, anna, he says the charges should be dismissed and they should be dropped altogether, which seems like a weird order i don't know it's not my area of expertise, but what do you make of the latest filing from chesebro? >> well, so the filing a speedy trial demand isn't mean that you leave wave your rights to file other types of motions. there are some motions that maybe chesebro could fail that would affect a waiver of his speedy trial demand. but in this case, it seemed like from part-time reporting inseam light chesebro's attorneys were focusing on filing several more motions including this motion to dismiss that we have seen and i don't think this motion to dismiss is going to go anywhere with judge mcafee as you said. he is arguing that what he did was controlled by federal law and so therefore he can't be prosecuted under state criminal law. of course here it's the case that some of these electors are elected, and certified, that is something that is done under georgia law. so i would be very surprised if, even if there is and a federal aspect to all of this, i would be very surprised if this motion goes anywhere. so i'm skeptical that it's going to change the balance of power and cause some chaos in the case. but we'll say. and i think we will start to see things move quickly after this hearing and after these arraignment waivers are all saddled, and judge mcafee enters a scheduling order tomorrow. >> this was tees me up for amy lee copeland. this will be the first televised episode of this trial after the defendants have entered their pleas. what are we anticipating there? >> hi chris. the hearing is tomorrow as 1:00. judge mcafee has entered a television order for the whole case. it's gonna be an interesting motion hearing because it's televised episode of this trial after the defendants have entered their pleas. what are we anticipating there? >> hi chris. the hearing is tomorrow as 1:00. judge mcafee has entered a television order for the whole case. it's gonna be an interesting motion hearing because it's really on chesebro's and powers motions to sever. but the judge has said to the dea, idiot can prepare to talk to me about how many witnesses you're going to call, how many exhibits he planned to enter, if you try this all together or try this in clusters. so the judge hasn't completely for a closed a discreet cluster arrangement of these defendants. i think it's a pretty thoughtful order and i think he realizes that the case may be getting out of his hands a little bit, and he kind of wants to have a schedule in conference and get everybody on the same page. >> on the question of severing, amy lee copeland, let me just stay with you. sydney powell, and again, i feel i'm doing a logic came, sydney powell and chesebro both filed to sever. i guess the question is, they could each individually sever or they could sever and just have the two of them. i guess my question is, jumping off what you said, the judge, at his discretion, could create some groups of defendants. >> he sure could. and they both filed for a speedy trial, which means the trials have to start by november 3rd or they're entitled to acquittal under georgia law. he could do the subgroups. he could try them together, which i think is gonna be likely. when you talk about what it means to sever somebody under georgia law, the court looks to whether there's gonna be a confusion based on the evidence or whether people are going to be presenting antagonistic defenses. the judge doesn't look to whether or not you have a better chat shot at acquittal acquittal if you get sorted out from under defendant. >> another filing today that i thought was interesting, ana, three of the fake electors filed, and they want their case removed to federal law. chesebro wanted dismissed and they want to move to federal court the way meadows does under the same theory that federal court is where you would try someone acting as a federal officer. fani willis basically said, this is her reply brief, impersonating certified presidential electors and service to a political campaign cannot be seriously within the scope of any federal role, which on its face as persuasive to me although i'm deposed disposed to find. that when you think about their shot, anna, i'm moving this to federal court? >> no, i think you're spot on, chris. i think this is a very weak case for a movable here. it is in contrast to the stronger case that i think mark meadows has. i am not convinced that mark meadows will succeed, and i certainly don't think that he should be able to raise this supremacy clause immunity defense that he has raised. but with that said, as i have said before, it's a really low bar to removal. but even with that low bar i really don't think that this fake electors claim is going to surpass that barr. with that said, there is a hearing that is coming up later this month on these claims, so we will learn a bit more about what judge jones thinks. and then lurking in the background of all this, of course, is the fact that if one of these cases is removed it could break everybody with them. so let's see what happens. >> and judge jones being judge stephen jones, federal district judge in fulton county, processing that motion to go to federal court. he's different from judgy, who's got the rico case. amy lee copeland, anna bower, i think i have all that straight. still to come, he had survived this long sub thanks to the support of his fellow republicans. now he's on his own. he is staring down in gop led impeachment. the saga of texas attorney general paxton and the lessons from it. that's next. so long summer, hello savings! blendjets labor day sale is on! blendjet gives you ice crushing big blender power on the go. so you can whip up a mouthwatering beverage, wherever you are! enjoy 15 plus blends before rapidly recharging via usb-c. and it even cleans itself with a drop of soap and water. stand out even when you■re accidentally twinning with our kaleidoscope of colors. don■t let these deals drift away! head to blendjet.com and order yours now! today is the first day of the impeachment trial, one of the most notorious figures of texas politics, republican state attorney general ken paxton. >> mr. paxton should be removed from office because he failed to protect the state and, instead, used the power of his elected office for his own benefit. mr. paxton had an obligation not to abuse his office for his own benefits. he betrayed his constituents and the sacred public trust that has been given him. and in texas, we require more from our public officials then to merely avoid being a criminal. >> paxton is facing 20 impeachment articles in the republican state senate, including corruption, misuse of public funds, and abuse of public trust. in many ways, paxton is a trump before trump kind of figure. back in 2015 he was even indicted on security fraud charges, although he denies them and has yet to go to trial. yes, you heard that right, eight years later he is not faced trial. back in october 2020, a former top officials in paxton's own office accused him of bribery and abusing his powers a.g.. he settled a lawsuit for more than $3 million with those former employees and then he tried to use state funds to band. now, a lot of paxton's record has been the public record for years. the republicans have stuck by him until now. that is in large part because, like a trump, paxton has a keen sense for where the party base is out politically. he sued the obama and biden administration's more than two dozen times age, he also helped lead trump's legal challenge to overturn the 2020 election. it's no surprise that the ex president is publicly defending paxton, running in social media, quote, hopefully republicans than texas house will agree that this is an unfair process that should not be allowed to happen or proceed. i will fight you if it does. the texas republicans don't appear to be afraid of that fight. i will fight too. at least for now, they really seem to have had enough of this guy and his brazenness and they are ready to solve their can paxton problem. texas state or positive jarvis johnson is a representative -- in houston, and a -- witch ken paxton used to cover his 3.3 million dollar whistleblower settlement. senator, it's good to have you. first, give me a read on the opening day of this, what this means for texas politics given that paxton is an enormously powerful and influential figure and that this is fundamentally a kind of republican on republican exercise. they have super majorities in both houses, a paxton is a republican, they just decided enough. >> yeah, i think so. i think this is where we are, not only in this state, but when you see elected official that continues to abuse their power, at some point or another the body then has to take charge. and i'm so happy that the body has taken charge and decided to indict paxton, to then go to trial for impeachment. there is bipartisan support across the board, there are many want to say that the democrats have created this, democrats, democrats, it is just talking points for some groups. essentially not the attention to what israel and that is politicians in the state, elected officials, taking full advantage of the office and abusing their power, what we see is a paxton abuse the power so that he can further gain himself and his family and his friends. that is illegal. and so, at that point, now we are going to trial and at this point we will see. i will say that, when you just mentioned donald trump, that can be a very scary and very intimidating point that he is making. that, if in fact, paxton is indicted and it's kicked out of office, that you have a former president who said there will be reciprocity. that there will be repercussions for that action. that is a very fearful. i'm very afraid of that type of mentality, that can skew and slip a decision in favor of paxton without taking into consideration all of the evidence that is out there. by the way, we have been placed as elected officials, state representatives, to be placed under a gag order. it is kind of unusual and rich, because at any given time, and the reason why we are placed under a gag order is because we didn't want to unduly influence the -- and i will say that in the last ten years i can't imagine any democrat saying anything that would have skewed or change the mind of a republican. >> if we lost jarvis johnson then were totally screwed. >> right. that is the whole point. i think it is disingenuous to impose that type of gag order because my constituents want to hear me, they want to know alive indian, they want to know where i stand on this. but, unfortunately, being placed under a gag order and then with the threat of being prosecuted kind of makes me step back. but i won't be silent and i won't not go before my constituents to let them know the truth and what history happening in this senate hearing for the impeachment of paxton. >> so my understanding is that the predicate here is that he got really, sort of, damning document by whistleblowers. people who worked for him, the liberals are out to get ken paxton. citing different ways that he abused his office. he settled with them and then he went to the texas state congress to say say -- hey before the settlement and my understanding is the appropriation committee that you sit on is that no we won't, and then he used the money anyways. do i have that right? >> no, he tried. he tried. one of the very questions that i asked of paxton and his team while he was sitting at, during a hearing, was do you have money in your own campaign account to pay for this? why should taxpayers pay for a mistake that you personally made? that you decided to make? and his comments were, well, i am an elected official and because of that -- of course he didn't want to further have any more dialogue about that. the opportunity was there for paxton to pay the money out of his own campaign and i think, because of the fact that he didn't pay it, was the straw that broke the camel's back i think for many of republicans that then decided to go for impeachment, the impeachment movement. there is money there. we even -- >> it doesn't seem outrageous to not give him the money for the state conference to pay for his settlement with his whistleblowers. jarvis johnson, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> still ahead, a federal appeals court decides alabama republicans cannot be trusted to draw their own district maps. the latest smackdown on republican election rigging, next. ion rigging, next that's some bad luck brian. and i think i'm late on my car insurance. good thing the general gives you a break when you need it. yeah, with flexible payment options to keep you covered. so today is your lucky...day [crash] so today is your lucky...day for a great low rate, go with the general. here's why you should switch fro [crash] so today is your lucky...day to duckduckgo on all your devie duckduckgo comes with a built-n engine like google, but it's pi and doesn't spy on your searchs and duckduckgo lets you browse like chrome, but it blocks cooi and creepy ads that follow youa from google and other companie. and there's no catch. it's fre. we make money from ads, but they don't follow you aroud join the millions of people taking back their privacy by downloading duckduckgo on all your devices today. the state of alabama's population is about a quarter black the state only has one majority black district out of a total of 70. you can see it, there highlighted in your screen. blue. now, that is so egregious, earlier this year, the 63 trump supreme court ruled the map violated the voting rights act. that alabama needs a second majority black district, or something close to it. but alabama republicans, face for that court decision, basically thumb to their nose at the court. instead, they proposed a map which slightly increases the percentage of black voters in one majority white district. today, a federal appeals court said, no. and call them out on it. the panel took the new maps out of the hands of republican state legislature, in handed responsibility to what's called a special master. someone appointed to draw new maps. now, the not so subtle subtext here, the struggle for national republicans to hold house of representatives. they fear a second majority black district in alabama. would cause republicans to see the next election. aiming to their narrow ten seat majority. democrats only need to win five seats to flip the house. alabama could be one. a louisiana may have to add a second majority black district as well. and there's the question of the indicted new york republican, george santos, running for reelection in a district that joe biden won fairly handily. and a handful of other new york republicans in precarious positions as well. all of which is to say, house speaker kevin mccarthy's life is likely to get significantly harder. she nelson is the present director of council for the naacp defense fund, which represented plaintiffs in the alabama case. and argued on their behalf before the supreme court. she joins me now. it's great to have you on the milligan case, which this case, was one of the great victories for voting rights in recent supreme court jurisprudence. on the vote the voting rights act. which -- they've been hostile. to they said, look, you have to draw a second black district. not to be overly productive, basically. that a majority black district, where voters have the candidate of their choice is the language. the state just didn't do that? so, now what? >> listen, the state of alabama didn't just not do it, they boldly didn't do it. they claimed that they would not do it, despite the fact that supreme court ordered them to do it. frankly, that is, i think, the nail in the coffin for the state of alabama when it came to the three judge panel. they said, that concession, that alabama was so flagrantly in violation of the supreme court order, basically, decided the case. you know, what we have in alabama is not just a sore loser, we have a state that is engaging in subversion of a supreme court order. that is such dangerous territory. it's easy for us to say, it's alabama, this is what alabama does. it's not surprising, look at the history. but we really can't normalize this. this is rogue conduct, it is infecting our entire congress with the taint of racial discrimination. and it's something that everyone should be alarmed about. >> yeah, just so the court says, even, the roberts courts of all court says, this is flagrant violation of the voting rights act. you need to redraw the maps. the state legislature tinkered a little bit, basically sent back, you know, like if your kid is really being stolen and pressing your buttons. they'll move one p on the play. back at you. that sort of performative disobedience. now, there's a special master, who appoint the special master? what is the special master going to do? >> so, the court determines who the special master will be. this is a neutral and objective party who will look at all of the maps that are presented, look at all of the evidence that was presented. and this person is an expert in the law, they understand the parameters within which they must work. based on the voting rights act, the constitution, the history and doctrine from the supreme court. and they will then draw a map that satisfies all of those constitutional principles, all of the parameters that have been established on the voting rights act. and they will present the court with a map that they believe meets the order of the supreme court. and it is, otherwise lawful. most importantly, does not discriminate against alabama's 1. 5 million black voters. >> yeah, we should note, the special master's draw maps when it is the sort of litigation, or legislatures at loggerheads, it's not a completely new thing. in fact, that's a special master of the group entire new york to the entire new congressional district maps. much to the chagrin of new york democrats, who hated those maps. where they got their but kicked a little bit. it is the timeline, is the requirement they do, this with a republican legislature or state officials in alabama try to draw this out so these maps are ready for the next election? >> i'm sure they will try to. this is what they did with a 22 elections. we filed this lawsuit in 2021. as soon as this map was passed by the alabama legislature, the legal defense fund and our plaintiffs, who we represented from the very beginning, went before the court and pointed out the racial discrimination and we got an order, back then, we've won it every single level of this proceeding, saying this was racial discrimination. the supreme court, unfortunately, allowed this map to stand during a 2022 midterm election. but this court, this three judge court, made it very clear, the special master must move forth with. that lovely arcane terminology means right away. it means get this done. and the court was very clear, it one of this map in place before the 2024 elections. otherwise, we would have black voters being disenfranchised, and frankly, all of alabama voters being disenfranchised, based on a discriminatory map, and yet another very important congressional election cycle. >> there's been similar concerns expressed and litigation around louisiana map. that the louisiana map did something similar. and the florida map. in fact, the florida map was a map that was so aggressive, it was more aggressive than what the state republican party in the legislature had drawn. so, does this and with alabama? >> absolutely not. let me tell you, there's any number of cases that could've gone to the supreme court. and on the same ruling that milligan did out of alabama. they are agree just, rachel gerrymander throughout this country. we are filing a brief today with the fifth circuit in the louisiana congressional region case. we will be arguing before the supreme court in october on the south carolina redistricting case. there was just a win last week in florida, because of its congressional redistricting. and on and on. georgia, i mean, i could go on about the egregious racial gerrymandering that is infecting our congress, and creating the imbalance that so many people are dismayed about. >> janai nelson, appreciate time tonight. before we go, quick reminder, the why is this happening podcast is going out on tour this fall. that q r code there on your screen is how you can come see us. there are still tickets available for philadelphia, msnbc's joy reid is now joined by an amazing double bill with naomi klein, whose new book is phenomenal. you have to check it. up two conversations, one ticket. at the phil morton in philly, i can't wait for that. just a small number of tickets available for the rachel maddow show in new york. you can come see us at the texas tribune festival, andrew weissmann, mary mccord onyork. you can come see us at the texas tribune festival september 23rd. and stay tuned for news on the chicago show coming soon. get tickets while they last. that is "all in" on this tuesday night. >> do i have sell cheese sandwiches out the back of my volkswagen to get tickets to this? is it like fellow the dead? >> i think we can hook you up. >> good to know. thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. as of today former president trump and all of his 18 codefendants, all of them in the fulton county conspiracy case, they have p