tv Velshi MSNBC July 3, 2022 6:00am-7:00am PDT
good morning. today is sunday, july the 3rd, i'm ali velshi. over the course of six congressional hearings, the january 6th sect committee has ht to make clear to the american people just how complicit the failed former president was in the attack on our nation's capital. now, the committee is seeking the testimony of another key witness who could bring even more evidence, insight and important context to the potentially illegal behavior conducted by some of the ex president's most loyal cronies. but the question is, will pat cipollone, the former white house counsel, honor the oath that he took as a public servant? or continue to pander to trump and his base? cipollone was subpoenaed for a deposition that was scheduled for this coming wednesday after bombshell testimony given by cassidy hutchison, a top aide to then chief of staff, mark meadows. from earlier hearings, we learned that cipollone warned trump against challenging the
2020 election results and did not want trump to go to the capitol after his incendiary speech on january 6th. but hudson also told the public this baloney had the year of mark meadows that day and wanted him to convince the former president to stop the insurrectionists. now, as the january six committee gears up for more hearings this month, the panel says it's prepared to investigate efforts to intimidate witnesses. we now know that, before testify, hutchison was urged by a text message to, quote, do the right thing and remain loyal to the ex president. nbc news has learned that that message came from her former boss, mark meadows. a spokesman for meadows denies that he ever attempted to intimidate hutchison. for most of, us it's been clear from the start of the former president and his allies played a role in the attempt to overturn the election and influence the january six attacks. these hearings have only cemented that. the question remains, whether it's moving the dial with republican voters and trump loyalist across the country.
new polling suggests that something might be working. a new ap survey reveals that 48% of americans believe the ex president should be charged with a crime for his role in the x direction. while 58% believes he bears a great deal of responsibility for what happens. that poll was taken before cassidy hutchison's testimony. another major question that remains on answered is the justice department watching. with me to discuss this further is barbara mcquade, she's a former united states attorney for the state of michigan and an msnbc legal analyst. barbara, good morning to you, thank you for being with us. you and i started this discussion earlier this week. obviously, the department of justice is watching this closely, we know from the attorney general, merrick garland, that he is following these developments. they can't just sort of pick it up like a buffet and decide to use it for charges, but what do you think is happening here as it relates to the justice department and potential criminal charges? >> i think i absolutely paying
close attention. they've also asked, as we, know for the transcripts of all 1000 witnesses who have testified before the committee. but i don't think that's all they're doing. we also know that search warrants where it served for the cell phones of john eastman and also for jeffrey clark. and that a number of the people who served as fake electors received grand jury subpoenas. there's an awful lot happening beneath the service, surface, i know sometimes people express frustration with merrick garland and the department of justice that they're not doing anything. i think they're more like a dog, calm of the surfside paddling like mad underneath. >> let's talk about this witness intimidation stuff. we discuss it earlier in the week, there's more information that's coming out and it does seem that someone sent a message to cassidy hutchinson. a reporting indicates was mark meadows, through an intermediary. these things are hard to read. rudy giuliani is a gift for lawyers because he just sort of says things that he shouldn't
sail lad, but this business about he's watching, he knows you're loyal and you will do the right thing. that's a little more discreet, that's mob style. >> it is mob style. it's done in a subtle way, so you have plausible deniability that, oh no, that wasn't the, threat we are just supporting you, or we are just reminding you that we're all here together to encourage you. but this is also a gift, ali, like you just said about rudy giuliani. because when someone tempers with witnesses, it is itself a very serious crime. it's a crime punishable by up to 20 years in prison and i know sometimes people like giuliani dismiss it as a mayor process crime. but it is a process that is essential to the functioning of our criminal justice system, and for that reason it is treated very seriously as a 20 or felony. so, it gives prosecutors, sometimes, a hook to get into a case where they might not otherwise be able to break the door open. and so, talking to that person, if they can use that as leverage, as a charge to get that person to cooperate and
find out who told them this and why, sometimes that could be a real entrée into a substantive case. if not, it is a serious crime in and of itself. sometimes you can't prove the underlying substantive crime but what you can prove is a liar lewis it imitation. and, then that's just a gift of a 20-year felony. >> we have two things that have with cassidy hundreds in this week. on one hand, it happens to every whistleblower in every case, there's been some effort at intimidation. it's been a whole part of the media that has attacked her credibility. there been people who have lauded her for her work. in the end, for a committee and perhaps the justice department needs people to come forward and they need evidence of any testimony, better off or worse off than they were after this? it's been a hard week to be cassidy hutchison, whatever one thinks of her. this is hard, to be in the middle of the spotlight and have people criticize it you and attack you. becomes difficult. >> no doubt. i'm sure we have only seen the surface of the kind of intimidation that she's getting,
probably, from friends and who knows, maybe even family members. but i think the investigation is much farther along, as a result of her testimony. she's a kind of witness who's a bridge witness, i would say, much of what we she would say would not be admissible as evidence because it was hearsay. but she let us to several very important witnesses and open the door to some lines of questioning. for example, passable one. i think her testimony is probably what pride him loose to testify, because she testified that he was saying things, like if he goes to the capital, we will be charged with every crime imaginable. if he doesn't stop this, we will have blood on our hands. what did he mean by those things? had they had prior conversations? it sounds like perhaps they had. also, with regard to mark meadows, mark meadows he mangan plussed when she said there are weapons out there. where he doesn't want to go to the capitol, doesn't want to do anything. it suggests or prior conversations. he had a call the night before with rudy giuliani and roger
stone. what happened there? what happened in that car when she kept trying to open the door to give him an urgent message and he kept closing it? there are things he knows that are not yet in the public domain, and i think that she has shed light on those other witnesses that the justice department will very much want to talk to. >> so, pat cipollone, he's going to talk to them in some fashion later this week. he's a lawyer, he knows well enough that he should do that. what happens? does he, generally speaking, will he cooperate what's she said? assuming what cassidy hutchison said was true and pat cipollone can corroborate that. does he become a more principle witness? when you said she's a bridge witness, it's cipollone more important of the process if he is able to corroborate which he said? >> yes. he was the person who was present with donald trump when all of these things were said. not only the tv just talked about but, remember, he was also in the room for that justice department conversation. and he was one of the people who threatened to resign if that letter got sent to the states by jeffrey clark.
so, he is a very key witness, he was there, he saw things that could be very important. there's been this little death about all only testify with a subpoena and i might have some privileges. i think that is a chance. that he knows, in the end, that he needs to tell the truth. and that he will but he needs to make it appear that he's only doing so because he has a legal obligation to do so. >> barb, thanks so much. it's always, barb mcqueen is an nbc legal analyst and a former united states attorney for the district of michigan. after hearing kospi hudson's explosive testimony, it's a part we drilled it on the forces acting up against those who speak up. i just alluded to that, the testimony like ours can change the course of history. it often has. and inform the public and crucial details to which we would otherwise be blind. keep in mind, coming forward with the truth is absolutely not free. it costs these witnesses a lot more than their time, especially when you go up against someone like donald trump who has a long history of bullying and attempting to influence witnesses. joining me now is someone who
face ignorant blowback after famously warning the american public of the realities of life inside the trump administration. the former department of homeland security chief of staff, miles taylor. he's also the ones anonymous author of this new york times op-ed called i am part of the resistance inside the trump administration. miles, good to see you, thanks for being with us. >> thanks, ali, good to be with you. >> the criticism of cassidy hutchison was not unexpected and right-wing media. but one part of it caught my attention, on fox, when they were talking about how this felt like an audition for the viewer now she's going to be famous and she's going to be going all the hotspots in d.c. and ever having to pay for a drink again. that's not how this works. that's not how this works when you are up against a group of people who have the time and the resources and the energy to crush or credibility. >> ali, there is a good number of whistleblowers now who have left the trump administration. and that sort of an informal fraternity among back.
rope of spoke at every single one of them, some of them very regularly. some of them i'm lucky to consider friends. i don't think a single one of them will tell you that they did it for fame or fortune. in fact, across that group, among us, people have lost their homes, their jobs, their marriages, their personal security, their life savings. none of these people ended up feeling like rock stars when they were done. and a lot of them, i will tell you, still suffer from a great deal of ptsd because, yes, you get, in some cases, weekly death threats from people. and they still try to find your location. it's almost universal among the whistleblower's that left the trump administration with me, and i suspect it's the same with cassidy hutchison. this is no cakewalk. yeah, people may see it externally and think she's on tv, she must love being famous. we haven't heard from cassidy hutchinson since then. if that was her goal, she would be out on every single tv show and signing big book deals. i imagine she's having a very
difficult time, which goes to show just how courageous this was. >> the other part of the criticism, which is interesting and it's been used often by the trump administration, trump world, was the idea that this person was neither in the room nor important. the allegations about cassidy hutchison or that she wasn't even in the stadium when it happened. which we know not to be true. but it's a big part of the effort, right? here's a picture, where she is right there in the room. but that's part of the effort, even miles taylor, chief of staff at the department of homeland security, couldn't have actually known that much about it inside or didn't have that much influence. >> it's a really easy line of attack, and a really easy line of attack to swat down. i mean, ali, anyone who actually knows what they're talking about when they know better american government knows that there are people that are in these rooms that aren't just the ones who are the household names. i received the same criticisms. trump, said i never seen the, sky i've never heard of this
guy, when i went out against him. and i released a zillion pictures of me and rooms with, them on air force one with, them at the board with them. there are plenty of examples. same thing with cassidy hutchison. there are two categories of people. one, with the principles, the cabinet secretaries, the top, leaders they want to see on tv. and that people you call the backbenchers, the ones where they're in the meetings with those people. cassidy hutchison is one of those backbencher, think of as a body camera inside the white house. she was steps away from the oval office, who had witnesses, meetings witness those conversations. these are the people that the senior leaders in the administration confided to all throughout the day. cassidy hutchinson was absolutely a credible witness, she was right there in the seat of american power, she would have been exposed to all of this. there's absolutely no question. i know the desk that she sat, i knew all of her predecessors. those people witness some of the most sensitive things inside the trump administration by virtue of the fact that you cannot get to the chief of staff of the white house
without passing by cassidy hutchison. and where her office was is where some of those most sensitive discussions happened, right there in that little foyer before you go into the chiefs office. >> so, we've tackled the media saying bad things about you, the random threats are going to get from trump supporters, things like that. the diminishment of what you may know in your credibility. there was yet another one that you faced, in october 28th of 2020. you faced calls from fox news to be treated as treasonous, to be charged with an actual crime for what you did. so, it wasn't enough to threaten you and silence. you i use you as an example but you can talk about bittman, you could top by cassidy hutchison or anyone else. the idea that what you did was treasonous, when you speak out about what you observed and government, critically, it's somehow treason. >> ali, you can't overstate this. i'm grateful that you're using
my case as a sort of pin jada. i don't mean that dismissively, i want to say that no need to have sympathy for me. i wanted to decide wide open about what the consequences could be, because i spent most of my career on the national security committee. i saw that the domestic terrorism threat in this country was surging. other people who have come forward did not have that luxury, did not go into it knowing how bad it would be. we are living in an era of unprecedented political intimidation, statistically. the attitudes toward political violence in this country will are exploding, and the whistleblowers who left the trump administration have absolutely been on the receiving end of it. so, just as you note, there were calls in my case to, again, put me in jail for life or to execute me. i still get text messages on this phone, ali, from people saying that i should be shot and killed. again, no one has to have sympathy for me, but that's the type of thing people who might be cassidy hutchison's, want to
be cassidy hutchinson, stewart considering coming forward, are contending with. and i dealt with this in the 2020 election, and i went to every senior figure that i knew who worked in the trump administration and convince them to go public and campaign against his reelection. universally, i heard one thing from the people who didn't want to do it. and that was fear, it was fear for their families physical security. people are actually worried that the threats are very real. and the only way we can lower the cost of descent is to get more people out there, being public, to show their strength numbers. i actually think that is the most powerful thing cassidy hutchison did this past week. she showed that it's doable and, i talk to committee staff, they know that this may potentially open the door to more people coming forward. and you noted, pat cipollone earlier, hopefully, this not just path to come forward. he was a top white house lawyer and there is no one, i will tell, you ali, no one who knows more about trump's potential attempted crimes than pat cipollone. he was often the very last line
of defense when we are in the oval office. the lawyer who could chime in and say, no, mister president, that is not legal. pat cipollone probably knows more about those potential crimes of donald trump than maybe anyone who served in that white house. let's hope we see that sort of courage from in this week, that we've seen from, you seen from cassidy hutchinson, and a lot of other people. thank you for that. it's important have this conversation with you. former chief of staff at homeland security under donald trump, as you offered the new york times bestseller a warning, up he initially published anonymously to describe the abuse of power witnessed and the trump administration. the supreme court delivered another devastating blow last week, shaping the pa of its key weapons battling climate change. the banned book club is back, i will speak with gerrard conley, author of boyer raced. a look at village, and family, and identity. some against a shocking backdrop of a christian
conversion therapy center. you don't want to miss this conversation. he's been 46 years since abigail adams urged her husband to remember the ladies, we are still asking the government to do. that you're watching velshi. velshi. when you have technology that's easier to control... that can scale across all your clouds... we got that right? yeah, we got that. it's easier to be an innovator. remember the ladies. so you can do more incredible things. [whistling]
independence was crafted and signed in 1776, the founding fathers certainly did not have women in mind. the declaration of independence was america's first organized foray into freedom as a nation. we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal. but they are endowed by their creators with certain unalienable rights, that among these were life, liberty, in this pursuit of happiness. that was only half true, as we know. the document that immortalized freedoms failed to condemn slavery, you knowledge columnist routes, and it fully ignored women's rights. the part about women missing is not for lack of trying at least on one person's part. four months before the united states declared independence from britain, abigail adams wrote to john adams the correspondence with each other and may have been the first part that lift to the women's rights movement ablaze. abigail i'm surge the first two
president of the united states to, quote, remember the ladies, when deliberating the legal prejudices. her argument deserve to be right in full. i long to hear that you have declared an independency and by the way in the new code of laws which i suppose it will be necessary for you to make i desire if you would remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them then your ancestors. do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the husbands, remember all men would be tyrants if they could. if particular karen attention is not paid to the ladies we are determined to foment a rebellion and will not hold ourselves ban by any laws in which we have no voice, or representation. that your sacks are naturally tyrannical is truth so thoroughly established eyes to admit of no dispute but such a view as wish to be happy
willingly give up the harsh title of master for the more tender and enduring one of friend. why then, not put it out of the power of the vicious analysts to use us with cruelty and the dignity with impunity. men of sentinel ages aboard those customs which treatise only asked the vessels of your sex. regardless then as being placed by providence under your protection and in imitation of the supreme being make use of that power only for our happiness. and quote. in the 1770, is even the wealthiest women like abigail adams had no citizenship or political rights. women could not vote or hold political office. married when we could not own property or sign contracts. if their wages, if they earn any wages, their wages legally went to their husbands. most women could not even read or write. if you are an indigenous woman,
your life was uprooted by colonization. if you are black woman and 70 76, you are likely enslaved. we all know how the story ends the. declaration of independence is signed, sealed, into littered on july 4th 1776 with a remedy to no remedy to with the lack of minority rights. john adams did respond to his letter, by the way, the first line as it all. as to your extraordinary code of laws, i cannot laugh. the declaration of independence should've marked an american and exceptional history, but today many americans are still fighting for their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. of this, of all of this, is not to suggest that we should not take great pride in the document that gave life to this budding democracy. the decoration of independence was largely a product of its time but we, have had 246 years now to get it right and build on the founding fathers promised freedom and expand
unalienable rights, rather than take them away. k on the beach. i have two daughters and then two granddaughters. i noticed that memories were not there like they were when i was much younger. since taking prevagen, my memory has gotten better and it's like the puzzle pieces have all been [click] put together. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. >> we've been talking a lot
about the supreme court. we've been talking a lot about abortion. but the u.s. supreme court delivered a devastating blow to the fight against climate change this week. on thursday, right before the court closed session for the season, the high court ruled that the environmental protection agency does not have the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions for existing power plants. the court also said, in a 6 to 3, ruling that the epa doesn't have the authority to shift the nation's energy production away from coal burning plants to other cleaner sources like solar and wind. now, in today's politics, it seems like denying climate change is for the republicans of this ruling's case in point. but the epa was created by a republican administration. back in 1970, the nixon white house created the epa to curb national pollution and look
into the ways that humans were harming the planet. here's a photo of the first epa administrator, william ruckelshaus, being sworn in with richard nixon by his side. imagine that today. in a 37 point message to congress next announced for the new epa to be able to set national air quality standards as tragic guidelines to lower emissions for motor vehicles. he sought legislation and the dumping of waste into the great lakes. he asked congress to approve a plan to tighten safeguards on the seaborne transportation of oil. at one time, republicans in america actually lead the charge on fighting for the environment. as for today, now many members of the party, including the conservative justices on the supreme court, see primarily concerned with rolling back the epa's regulatory power. this decision by the supreme court has global implications as well, as a new piece in the new yorker puts it, quote, this new jurisprudence would, in turn, make it even harder to achieve any international progress on rising temperatures. if the united states,
historically the world's largest emitter of carbon, can't play a serious policy roll, it won't play a serious leadership role. joining me now is bill mckibben, one of the preeminent environmental thinkers of our time. there is an environmentalist, he's the founder of an organization called third act which is comprised of people over the age of 60 who are determined to change the world for the better. he's also the author of a memoir called the flag, of the cross in the station wagon. bill, thank you for joining us again. of course, you are the author of the article that i was quoting. tell me a little bit more, you and i started this conversation earlier this week, but tell me a little bit more about this. because it seems that with the court has said the epa can't do is what's simple tens like us think the epa should have been doing. >> i mean, the fact that it's called the environmental protection agency should give us some of a clue. it really is and threatening to go back to its history. yes, richard nixon signed it all into law but it's not
because richard nixon cared about the environment, he once described environmentalists as animals who want to live in caves. he had to do it because 20 million americans, 10% of than population, went out in april of 1970 for the first earth day. it was the biggest demonstration in america about anything. in the midterm elections that followed, they targeted a dirty dozen incumbent senators and congressman and be more than half of them in a day when incumbency was an even stronger protection than it is now. so, that people power is really what's brought us the clean air act, the clean water act, the endangered species act, all the laws that really still represent the high water mark of congressional concern for the environment. it's the laws that are now being undermined by the supreme court. i mean, but the supreme court said last week was the clean air act can really be used to protect clean air. in this case, to protect us
from carbon. and the other chemicals that are heating up the atmosphere. it's a tremendous victory for the right, in a fight that began back then in 1971. you know about that louis powell memo that famously launched but long job of building this right-wing infrastructure. well, it happened in those few months between the signing of the clean air act and the inauguration of the epa. it was precisely because these guys were terrified that polluting industry would be regulated. that's why the koch brothers, our biggest oil and gas parents, gave so much attention to this fight for so long. that they're now winning it should be a signal, among other things, that is time for the rest of us to do what people did in 1970 and get out in the streets and in big numbers, to start being the backlash to this particular fallout.
>> isn't that happening, bill? i would've argued that, for that very successful earth day in 1970, we've got more successful earth day is now. they're bigger, they're all over the world. what is lacking here? the public seems to be completely on the right side of this. even with environmental discussions, of which you have been a part for decades, you would often be a participant with somebody who is a climate denier. we don't do that anymore and mainstream media. are we so much farther ahead than this would suggest? >> we've won the public opinion, battle there is no question. between the big movements that we built over the last decade and the fact that mother nature keeps hitting us upside the head with a two by four. those have changed public opinion dramatically. 70% of americans now want rapid action on climate change, because they are scared. and they should be. that's today's washington post points out, in a massive data study, summer has become the scary time of year in our country.
but what has changed since 1970 is the transmission belt between public opinion and policy action. having a 70% majority doesn't do much good anymore because, over the years, the koch brothers at all have figured out had a game the system so the tackle early that they're rich and powerful minorities are more than enough to keep change from happening. that's why we still relied on the clean air act to do this work of trying to deal with climate change. because it's the only law, still, that anyone's been able to pat on those 50 years that really gets it. it's because the conditions were right when it passed. they're difficult now. but maybe not impossible. look, this trio of supreme court decisions on guns, on choice and on climate should be giving the democrats an unrivaled chance now to stand up. because every one of these is
deeply, deeply unpopular. i'm not talking 50 to 48 unpopular, i'm talking 70 30 unpopular. even in our horribly undemocratic system, those kinds of majorities should be enough to get done what needs doing. somebody needs to marshal them. one would hope that it would be joe biden or some other part of the democratic party that does it, and that they do it pretty fast. because the next few elections may make it even harder for us to exercise those majorities. >> bill, thanks as always. thanks for the work you do it for decades on this. bill mckibben is a contributing writer at the new yorker, he should look at the article that he wrote the other day, it's important. it's also a distinguished scholar in environmental studies at middlebury college. good to see you again, bill, thank you. >> thank you very much, ali. have a good day. >> right after the break, akron,
last week's police killing of a black delivery driver. 25-year-old jayland walker was gunned down by officers early monday morning, after they try to pull him over for an unspecified traffic violation. he allegedly refused, which led to a chase and then on foot pursuit. and attorney for walker's family said police then shot at him over 90 times, with more than 60 bullets making contact. however, officers claim that walker fired a gun at them, which is why they say they returned with so much force. it's a city prepares for reaction to the body cam footage, the family is pleading that they want peace. nbc news correspondent george sullies has more. >> anger and frustration, only expected to build this morning an acronym high. oh -- authorities set to release police body cam footage in the shooting death of jayland walker, early this afternoon. >> the public is going to have legitimate questions. i have questions. >> the 25-year-old was killed
by police last monday, following a car and foot chase. police say walker shot at officers during a highway chase, later finding a gun in his car. the lawyer for walker's family has seen the video and says he see no evidence to support those claims. >> they were firing on top of each, other there's smoke in the air, when officers clip is empty and he reloads with a full clip. you see all of this and six seconds. >> robert dicello's says officers fired more than 90 shots, striking walker more than 60 times. walker's cousin has also seen the footage. >> i just broke down after that. because it was just shocking. >> police said walker posed a deadly threat, starting with the refusal to comply with a traffic stop. the pursuit ending in a parking lot where walker was handcuffed. >> he starts getting shot, as he shot and falls to the ground, he is not handcuffed until after the gunfire updates. >> is there any chance that he fired up police officers at any point? >> i really don't know. i didn't see anything like that, i don't know.
that's where we're going to allow the investigation to play itself out. >> black people account for 27% of those fatally shot by police last year. fierce protests could turn violent led the city to cancel july for celebrations. the family, calling for calm. >> they want us to be peaceful, but they want answers. and they want accountability. >> our thanks to nbc's george sullies for that report. still, ahead the first book on our velshi banned book club summer eating, club boy's by garrett conley. i'll sit down with garrett and discuss his memoir on conversion their b and identity. way raised is an amazing read and amazing watch. it was made into an award-winning feature film in 2018. >> jared, i want you to do well. i want you to have a great life. i love you, but we cannot see a
>> for members of the velshi banned book club that have not read today's featured, book a memoir called boy erased, or seen the movie adaptation, i'll give you a quick synopsis that some of you may find hard to hear. in 2004, when author garrard conley was a freshman in college, he walked through the doors of a conversion therapy center, ironically named love in action. in an attempt to cleanse himself of his homosexuality. his parents, devout missionary baptist, had given him an ultimatum. conversion therapy or exile. conley grappled with a sexuality in secret, believing in no uncertain terms that a
ring of hell was reserved especially for gay people. just five pages and two way race, conley writes, despite my secret wish to run away from the shame i felt says my parents found out i was gay, i had too much invested in my current life to leave it behind. in my family and the increasingly blurry god i had known since i was a toddler. and quote. connally was outed to his parents in the most unimaginable way, he was assaulted and raped on his college campus and his assailant called his parents and told them that he was gay. boy raced as written using flashbacks between police two weeks stint at 11, action the conversion therapy camp, and defining moments in his life leading up to the so-called treatment. the american south and congolese fundamentalist christian communities serve as the backdrop. you'd be forgiven for thinking that could bridge there be is a dark light on america's, past sunday thrown away long ago. but you'd be wrong. very wrong, in fact. just two weeks ago president
biden signed an executive order aimed at drying up federal funding for conversion therapy. it's not an outright federal ban them. a study backed by the trevor project, an lgbtq anti-suicide advocacy group, found that around 600 and $50 million is spent on conversion practices every year. this number includes payments for many private insurance companies, as well as medicaid. yeah, medicaid funds gay conversion therapy in this country. this map shows the only states in the united states that fully protect lgbtq youth from the dangers and abuse of conversion therapy. however, boy raised is much more than just a shocking exposé, i'll lighting the atrocities of conversion therapy. it's actually a beautiful and achingly rock memoir that grapples with the complex necessity of family. the role that religion can play even in a modern world. the power of forgiveness and, of course, identity. it's also a story of survival, physical and emotional survival. it should come as no surprise to members of velshi banned
book club members has been targeted for patients. in 2017, the book was included on a list of 850 titles that republican state representative matt crowds of texas wanted removed from library shelves and reading lists across the state. boy raced was fired from the only book that explored lgbtq themes on that exhaustive list, our own internal list of banned books as title after title of sexuality and gender literature. memories, fiction, verse. it's a course with which we are all becoming familiar. but one that does not drown out the song that looks like way raised in saying. right after the break, i'm joined by the author of boyer raced, garrard conley. we'll dive deeper into his fearless my, marta anywhere.
psst. girl. you can do better. ok. wow. i'm right here. and you can do better, too. at least with your big name wireless carrier. with xfinity mobile, you can get unlimited for $30 per month on the nation's most reliable 5g network. they can even save you hundreds a year on your wireless bill, over t-mobile, at&t and verizon.
wow. i can do better. yes, you can. i can do better, too. break free from the big three and switch to xfinity mobile. >> we're back now, with the velshi banned book club. this morning, and thrilled to be joined garrard conley by, author of the memoir boyer raced. thank you for being here. >> thanks for having me. >> i hope he did justice to the book at our introduction. >> that was beautiful. >> yet, when he read, it the impression you get is that it was you versus your parents. and yet, i opened the book and the dedication is for my parents. >> yeah, i think marquette it could sometimes shape the way people approach a book. but i was always dedicating it to my parents. >> interesting. were you surprised? because i'm now not. i was always surprised by something that was on a banned book club, is now you can
predict what's going to be our banned book club. this all the, sudden if your name shows up on texas congressman matt cross within vocalist, were you surprised? >> i, mean i guess surprise is a strange reaction these days. but i grew up hearing about lgbtq books being banned, that i would have to sneak to barnes and noble and go to the gay and lesbian section and find edmund white, spoke for example, boys on the story. i would sometimes sneak, it sometimes and put another cover on the front of a tide that i was reading it. so, no, i'm not surprised by any of this. >> should it be? should be off of kids reading lists? it is graphic, it's difficult. >> i don't think it should be off of kids reading lists, because i think kids are going to find a way to read literature that might be above their age range. >> possibly more so when they're banned. >> yeah, exactly. should it be taught in high school? maybe not. but i have lots of stories where people have emailed me
and said, you know, i found this book when i was 16 and it helped me think through these thoughts. even one email i got from one student, when the book came out in 2016, he said that he found a book and he had wanted to commit suicide and when he read the book he no longer wanted to. which is such a -- to get that email right when your book comes out, when this book came out in 2016, no one was really talking about conversion therapy. there are very few fans in the united states. >> because people didn't really -- >> didn't know what it was. they had no idea what it was. i don't think this book was even going to reach certain people. but when i got that email i was like, okay, i guess i could rest now. >> you never had to sell another book. it doesn't matter. if somebody says they're not going to kill themselves because they read your book. >> it was pretty insane to hear that. >> does the idea that someone would have taken their life because of this surprise you?
and how much that occurred to you when you are struggling through all of this? >> i read a lot about this in the book. i was very suicidal before even going at a conversion therapy. and they conversion therapy as sort of like a crucible that builds on all the horrible feelings you have as a gay kid growing up in the south. and a lot of stereotypes that exist. we were seated with people in therapy that we're dealing with these ideology, with pedophilia, with all these other issues that should have been separate concerns. but these are stereotypes, right? some people say, if you're a teacher and you again are teaching kids, maybe you're going to be a predator. and these stereotypes get up and walk on two legs. they become realities, the more that we use them. i always talk about this. you could be sitting at the dinner table with somebody in your family who says, well, what's next now that we have marriage equality?
i would just kind of marriage to animals, you know? and people laugh. maybe they're like, that's a weird uncle. but then i'm sitting there next to someone dealing with these reality and being told that it's the same thing. which is incredibly harmful, you can't recover from that. >> you're an educator now. and i'm a business journalist, so i see the $650 million that we barely spent on conversion therapy. from insurance companies and medicaid, which meant that more money was spent than that. was there any return on investment? was there any part of this i was useful are good? >> no. in fact, that conviction therapist to write ran my camp, john, smith is now married to a man living in paris, texas and happily making furniture with his husband. >> wow. that's a big sale. >> -- >> our big success, i don't. now >> i think the big success. >> the big fail for the conversion therapy. >> now, he is helping me advocate for and a conversion therapy. >> you go back to the
dedication to your parents, you said you are always going to write it for your parents. compassion and compassion for your family and empathy is a major theme in this book. talk to me about that. was that a natural outcropping? because you must have been really mad. >> i was for a little while. mostly just disappointed, you know, as my parents might have said to me at one point. i just felt, i was there at the therapy session the last day before i left and they were asking me to sit across from an empty chair and imagine my father sitting there. they said, you need to show that you hate him because obviously the stereotypes that a gay man must hated's father, right, that is freudian stuff in there. i said i don't hate my father, i don't feel that way, i feel sad that we're disconnected. they kept saying, you're not telling the truth. luckily, i had read 1984 by this point and learned that words could mean they're opposite and can be used in a certain way to brainwash people. and i was like, this is not
what love is. utah calling yourself 11 action but it's actually hate and action. and i stood up and left auditorium, that's when my mom came to get me. i remember, thinking this is not how you show compassion. i was taught compassion and, and suddenly, it was taken away for me. my parents made a mistake, they'll be the first to admit that. but they also taught me compassion and love. and they provided for me, it was a wonderful life until that happened. >> yeah, you actually paint them in a very positive light in the book. there's one scene with your dad, early into boyer raced, which struck me. it reads, when i was very, young seven or eight years old, i would wake for my scripture inspired nightmares and walk the hallway to my father's bedroom to stand at the edge of his bed and wish him a wake. i thought he should've understood me without the need for words. that is on page 53. the desire to be seen and understood by what's pants is just universal. and you can't wish it away. >> totally. i think, sometimes, toxic
relationships can poison you to such a degree that there is no way to get back. but luckily my parents are compassionate people. and the religious experience that i had, i'm not anti religion, i'm anti-fundamentalism. which is any literal interpretation of any text that is often based on just one person's idea of how it should be read. that is incredibly dangerous, when you use that either for legislation or in the training of your kids. i think that i just never felt that the bible was really about hatred, i felt that it is about compassion and love and christ is a perfect example of. that >> we garrard, what a great whatever conversation, yeah conversation we're going to come yeah conve rsation we're go i wish he was . gary connally was author of the memoir boyer raised.
-- we will continue the conversation with karen as you will see it. even steven extreme the extended kind of this conversation later this week, exclusive with peacock. for now it does with me. you're watching velshi. get me next adelaide sunday morning each time eastern, half the happy 4th of july due. charles -- is filling in on the sunday show. he begins right now. >> good morning and welcome to the sunday show. i'm charles lowe filling in for jonathan kaye part. we begin with a feature of american democracy as the supreme court and statistic torque term by launching to the right. in the last few weeks, the court managed to cut miranda rights, extend the second amendment, allow corporate funding for public just education, make it harder to fight climate change, and overturn a woman'