Speaker 1: Good morning, peeps, and welcome to woke FF Daily with
Speaker 1: Meet your Girl Danielle Moody, recording live from my Brooklyn Cilarium. Folks,
Speaker 1: you know this country is just one big fucking cesspool.
Speaker 1: The other day on Twitter, I said that what is
Speaker 1: transpiring right now and our culture and our political climate
Speaker 1: makes cesspools look like natural springs. Um. The performative bullshit
Speaker 1: that Kevin McCarthy did on the floor at the end
Speaker 1: of last week was so disgraceful, so foolish. I mean,
Speaker 1: are we are we what trying to filibuster giving children
Speaker 1: the care that they need, giving parents child tax credit
Speaker 1: so that you know, they don't go broke while trying
Speaker 1: to also work, put food on the table and pay
Speaker 1: their mortgages. Like I just, I'm so confused every single
Speaker 1: day about what the Republican message is outside of hate, obstruction,
Speaker 1: white supremacy, misogyny, islamophobia, transphobia, homophobia, you name it, they
Speaker 1: claim it. Right. You have Matt Gates, who is a despicable, disgusting,
Speaker 1: fucking sexual predator right now, who is saying that he
Speaker 1: is going to offer a congressional internship, which mind you,
Speaker 1: Let me just remind people because I think that folks
Speaker 1: like don't necessarily know unless you've lived inside of the Beltway,
Speaker 1: that a congressional internship, a fellowship on Capitol Hill used
Speaker 1: to be something that was distinguished, prestigious. Right. I myself
Speaker 1: was a fellow on Capitol Hill many many many moons ago,
Speaker 1: when you know we had a functioning, fucking government. Right.
Speaker 1: But for Matt Gates of all fucking people to signal
Speaker 1: that he would welcome a murderer as a congressional aid
Speaker 1: just shows you that there is absolutely no bottom. And
Speaker 1: when I say that, I want people to remain vigilant
Speaker 1: because you see, when people have nothing to lose, when
Speaker 1: there is no bottom, when they have decided, as later
Speaker 1: our guest Glenn Kirshner will remind us, when they have chosen,
Speaker 1: excuse me, lawlessness. When lawlessness is where we are going,
Speaker 1: then everyone should be concerned. And I'm not saying that
Speaker 1: we should live our lives in fear, right, in fear
Speaker 1: of retaliation from the Republican Party, as they want to
Speaker 1: do over Paul Goser getting censured because he's a violent
Speaker 1: piece of shit, Right, who thinks said it's okay to
Speaker 1: post videos about murdering one of your fucking colleagues. Let
Speaker 1: me tell you something. You wouldn't have a job at
Speaker 1: a fast food fucking chain if you had put out
Speaker 1: some hot shit like that. And the fact that that
Speaker 1: motherfucker is still able to sit in Congress now toothless
Speaker 1: right because he has no power, But the fact that
Speaker 1: he still has a job and is collecting a check
Speaker 1: from the taxpayers of this goddamn country. I'm like, miss
Speaker 1: me with the bullshit, right, because if you could not
Speaker 1: act in the way that the Laura Beaubert's, the Paul Gosers,
Speaker 1: the Marshary Taylor Greens, if you couldn't act like that
Speaker 1: at a fast food chain, at a big box fucking
Speaker 1: store and think that you were going to keep your job,
Speaker 1: then how the fuck are we allowing these people to
Speaker 1: continue to be referred to as members of Congress? How
Speaker 1: were you not expelled? You know, the more that I
Speaker 1: see this party, this cult act a fool, the more
Speaker 1: that I see them embrace violence, right, and cruelty and
Speaker 1: mayhem as their choice of action, the more that I'm like,
Speaker 1: where are the guardrails? You know, the founding fathers of
Speaker 1: this nation, right, those that founded this nation on the
Speaker 1: backs and the brutality right of the you know, indigenous
Speaker 1: population that was already here could not have FORESI could
Speaker 1: not foresee the fuckery that we are in right now,
Speaker 1: because I don't think that, even for as vile of
Speaker 1: slaveholders and masters that they were, I don't think that
Speaker 1: they foresaw a party that would literally, legitimately work tirelessly
Speaker 1: to undermine the very principles that they were created. You know,
Speaker 1: I continue to wonder what happened to like raucous debate
Speaker 1: that was steeped in deep policy right and ideology, when
Speaker 1: we would actually watch our leaders go back and forth,
Speaker 1: not with barbs and insults and attacks against people's character,
Speaker 1: but instead about whether or not you were actually offering
Speaker 1: up something of note of importance to the American people
Speaker 1: that would change their day to day lives. What happened
Speaker 1: to that? You know? I am not too old, right
Speaker 1: or too young to remember a time when that was
Speaker 1: the norm, but I feel like that died when Obama
Speaker 1: was elected to office. No, and actually, if we go
Speaker 1: back even further, because we remember that this was the
Speaker 1: party that impeached Bill Clinton for a fucking blowjob, but
Speaker 1: refused to impeach Donald Trump for trying to overthrow the government,
Speaker 1: or trying to pressure and persuade a foreign leader with
Speaker 1: all of the evidence in front of them, a blowjob
Speaker 1: was much more damaging to the country than an attempted
Speaker 1: coup everywhere that we look right now, everywhere from our
Speaker 1: judicial system right and the lackluster department of justice that
Speaker 1: we have who you know, we have come to understand
Speaker 1: Merrick Garland as a man of little passion, of little urgency,
Speaker 1: of someone who is so steeped in preserving an institution,
Speaker 1: but not the integrity of that institution, not restoring the
Speaker 1: faith in our agencies at least right at least in
Speaker 1: the in the perception that justice will be served against
Speaker 1: those who break the law. We don't even have that.
Speaker 1: We're holding onto that by a fucking threat of right now.
Speaker 1: You know, I get that Democrats want to, you know,
Speaker 1: talk about policy. I get that policy is important. And
Speaker 1: the infrastructure bill that was passed and the human infrastructure
Speaker 1: bill that is coming up right behind it, these things
Speaker 1: are important. But I have got to state once again
Speaker 1: that there is nothing more important to our nation right
Speaker 1: now than securing our democracy. And you do that by
Speaker 1: bringing those who threaten our democracy who's still in this
Speaker 1: slow moving coup that is happening, that you take them,
Speaker 1: you take them right out. And I don't mean in
Speaker 1: a violent middle what in a violent way. I don't
Speaker 1: mean take them out as if they're not breathing anymore,
Speaker 1: but I mean take them out of commission, put them
Speaker 1: behind bars, make them the symbol to those that if
Speaker 1: you try again to overthrow our government, if you align
Speaker 1: yourself right with the drudges of our society and our
Speaker 1: political system, you will go to jail. How is that
Speaker 1: not like what we are doing? How is that not
Speaker 1: rocket science? I just I am out of place every
Speaker 1: day every day when I turn on the camera, when
Speaker 1: I turn on you know, the mic, and I'm always
Speaker 1: what am I going to say? What am I going
Speaker 1: to offer? That is not going to incense you all?
Speaker 1: And you know, a part of woke AF is about
Speaker 1: building productive rage. And what do I mean by productive rage?
Speaker 1: I mean that rage and anger are in fact tools, right,
Speaker 1: They are tools that help us move right if we
Speaker 1: target that energy right into having some type of outcome.
Speaker 1: Because if we were to all shrug our shoulders and
Speaker 1: just be like, well, it is what it is, then
Speaker 1: everything would get worse. And I know you're thinking to yourself,
Speaker 1: how could it get worse? Don't even ask that question,
Speaker 1: don't even put that out into the fucking universe right now,
Speaker 1: But it could the only reason why Derek Chauvin is
Speaker 1: in prison is because of people like you, because you
Speaker 1: were outraged, disgusted and decided to march, decided to donate,
Speaker 1: decided to make phone calls. That was productive anger and rage.
Speaker 1: When the late John Lewis talked about good trouble, that
Speaker 1: is when we know that justice is on our side,
Speaker 1: but that the powers that be will use any any
Speaker 1: amount of forceful tactics in order to silence us. Our
Speaker 1: voice is our power, right And I know that every
Speaker 1: single day you feel exhausted, because I know that I do,
Speaker 1: because you're like, when is enough going to be enough? Like,
Speaker 1: if we don't convict Kyle Rittenhouse of murder, what the
Speaker 1: fuck do you think is going to happen in a
Speaker 1: couple of months on these American streets with the Buggaloo
Speaker 1: Boys and the Proud Boys and all of those little
Speaker 1: menacing fucking groups now feeling emboldened right to go out
Speaker 1: and to kill because nothing is going to happen to them.
Speaker 1: We have got to continue to be angry, but restore
Speaker 1: that energy with rest right, restore that energy with a
Speaker 1: deep meditation on what we believe to be true, which
Speaker 1: is that this group, this twenty five percent of people
Speaker 1: that Donald Trump and Trumpism has a holdover, that we
Speaker 1: are still the majority, right, that there is still more
Speaker 1: of us than there are of them. But we have
Speaker 1: got to create strategy. We have got to put one
Speaker 1: foot in front of the other and hold these people accountable.
Speaker 1: And if that looks like good trouble, I am all
Speaker 1: fucking here for it. Because here's the thing is that
Speaker 1: we are not going to fight fire with fire because
Speaker 1: they have fucking bazookas, right, they have like tanks in
Speaker 1: their backyard that they're ready to roll out. So we
Speaker 1: have got to think of better ways. You know, there
Speaker 1: was a time hundreds of years ago when even the
Speaker 1: thought of abolishing slavery, the foundational economic institution that created
Speaker 1: this fucking country, right and world economies, that the thought
Speaker 1: of abolishing it was so outside the scope of realm
Speaker 1: of possibility. It took centuries, but it happened. There was
Speaker 1: a time when thinking that black people were going to
Speaker 1: be able to vote in this country was seen again
Speaker 1: outside of the realm of possibility. There's no way that
Speaker 1: this racist, rabid, white supremacist country is going to allow
Speaker 1: the children of former slaves to be able to vote.
Speaker 1: And it did. It happened every time that we think
Speaker 1: that something is impossible, every time that we believe this
Speaker 1: country will not bend with our will and our rage,
Speaker 1: we force them to. And I don't want us to
Speaker 1: lose sight of that, because they will not take our
Speaker 1: power away, not without a fucking fight. Coming up next,
Speaker 1: dear friends, is my conversation with our friend Glenn Kirshner,
Speaker 1: the host of Justice Matters and MSNBC legal analysts. He
Speaker 1: is going to run through the Written House case, the
Speaker 1: McDaniels case, where we are with Steve Bannon's indictment, and
Speaker 1: where we are moving with the insurrectionists. That is coming
Speaker 1: up next, folks. You know that every week when we
Speaker 1: have the opportunity to sit down with our friend, the
Speaker 1: host of Justice Matters, Glenn Kershner and an MSNBC legal analyst,
Speaker 1: I am both excited and also saddened by the legal
Speaker 1: news that we have to go through on a regular basis,
Speaker 1: this week being one that has been you know, incredibly daunting.
Speaker 1: I would say, Glenn, I had tweeted many times that
Speaker 1: I was not following the Kyle Rittenhouse case with the
Speaker 1: same vigor that I did with Derek Chauvin or with
Speaker 1: George Zimmerman for that matter, because based on the judges
Speaker 1: initial Judge Schrober's initial flippant remarks, whether it be around
Speaker 1: the word victim, whether it be you know, admonishing the prosecution,
Speaker 1: you know, just this week throwing out MSNBC from the courtroom,
Speaker 1: his ringtone being the ringtone that was used at every
Speaker 1: Trump rally. How do you wrap your mind around these
Speaker 1: figure garis these judges that are supposed to be these
Speaker 1: impartial figures. But what we see time and time again,
Speaker 1: much in the same way that I look at police
Speaker 1: reporting now, is that there are anything but so there is.
Speaker 1: You know, we get the elected officials that we vote for,
Speaker 1: and most judges, local judges are elective. I always thought
Speaker 1: there was an inconsistency or an incongruity between running for
Speaker 1: office to be a judge, where you're really primary responsibility
Speaker 1: is to be fair and impartial and civil to everybody,
Speaker 1: every litigant, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, national origin, you know, lifestyle,
Speaker 1: any of that running for office and then serving as
Speaker 1: a judge when you because you know, these judges will
Speaker 1: run for office saying I'm going to be the I'm
Speaker 1: gonna take liberties here, the hanging judge, law and order,
Speaker 1: lock them all up, keep our community safe. Well, judge,
Speaker 1: that that's not your job. Your job is to be
Speaker 1: a fair and impartial referee in essence between the prosecution
Speaker 1: and the defense. And it is your job, judge, to
Speaker 1: make sure that the prosecution doesn't overreach and violate the
Speaker 1: rights of the defendant. So you know, we get the
Speaker 1: judges we deserve when we elect them. So I don't know, Danielle.
Speaker 1: I've always struggled to figure out how can we best
Speaker 1: go about installing judges appointed judges appointed by the president
Speaker 1: if it's a federal court, or by a governor, if
Speaker 1: it's a state court, or elected I don't think there
Speaker 1: is any perfect way to choose and put in place
Speaker 1: judges because we have a whole bunch of Mitch McConnell
Speaker 1: judges that were rated not qualified by the American Bar Association,
Speaker 1: and a corrupt president got to install them on the
Speaker 1: federal bench. So but Judge Trader, I think is unique.
Speaker 1: I've appeared before nearly two hundred judges I think military
Speaker 1: and civilian, trial court and appellate court. In my thirty
Speaker 1: years of prosecuting cases. I've never seen somebody quite as
Speaker 1: ill suited to be a judge as Judge Schroeder. He made,
Speaker 1: you know, a really horrific decision that I don't believe
Speaker 1: any other judge would have made on the front end
Speaker 1: end of this trial. And that infuriated me because victims'
Speaker 1: rights are also near and dear to my heart. When
Speaker 1: he said, the prosecution may not refer to the victims
Speaker 1: as victims, but the defense may refer to those same
Speaker 1: people as rioters and looters and arsonists and basically people
Speaker 1: who brought it on themselves. They deserved what they got.
Speaker 1: That was the message the judge allowed to be said
Speaker 1: to the jury based on his disparity of treatment of
Speaker 1: the parties. That's horrendous and biased. So and then you
Speaker 1: ticked off a number of other things he did. He
Speaker 1: said something really ominous at the end too, that I've
Speaker 1: gone back and I've read and reread to try to understand.
Speaker 1: He said, and I'm going to paraphrase a little bit,
Speaker 1: but it's been published in any number of articles. He said, well,
Speaker 1: you know, if the jury gets things right, everything will
Speaker 1: be fine, and if not, it's going to get ugly.
Speaker 1: I've never had a judge articulate that, Danielle, but it
Speaker 1: feels to me like he hasn't ruled on the motion
Speaker 1: for a mistrial because he's waiting to see what the
Speaker 1: jury does. If the jury finds him not guilty, in
Speaker 1: his biased mind, it might be no harm, no foul.
Speaker 1: If the jury finds him guilty. There's something that is
Speaker 1: little used called a j n o V judgment notwithstanding
Speaker 1: a verdict. A judge can enter a not guilty verdict
Speaker 1: after a jury has returned a guilty verdict if he
Speaker 1: believes the jury's verdict is not supported by the evidence.
Speaker 1: And when I heard the judge say that, and it
Speaker 1: sent a chill down my spine, because it almost feels
Speaker 1: like if the jury convicts Rittenhouse, he would be prepared
Speaker 1: to grant a j n o V which is kind of,
Speaker 1: in substance, the same as a mistrial. And he hasn't
Speaker 1: ruled on the mistrial motion yet. Boy, that would be
Speaker 1: about as ugly as judicial conduct gets. In my opinion.
Speaker 1: But you know, Glenn, knowing all of that to be true,
Speaker 1: knowing that anyone who without a legal degree could see
Speaker 1: that this judge was extraordinarily biased right from the moment.
Speaker 1: I don't know what else you call people that are
Speaker 1: murdered in cold blood, that decided to leave their homes
Speaker 1: in a pandemic to protest against injustice. I don't know
Speaker 1: what you would call those people other than to refer
Speaker 1: to them as victims, right when there is no evidence
Speaker 1: of looting or arson or any of the heinous things
Speaker 1: that he brought up that the defense was able to use.
Speaker 1: And so what recourse, if any, would the prosecution have
Speaker 1: to remove a person like Judge Schroeder or to contest
Speaker 1: right whatever his ruling may be that could subvert what
Speaker 1: it is the decision that comes out from the jury. Sadly,
Speaker 1: the prosecutors don't have a lot of remedies available to them.
Speaker 1: The defense has remedies available incomparable circumstances. But prosecutors can
Speaker 1: make a motion to have a judge recuse himself from
Speaker 1: the case for bias or improper judicial conduct. How often
Speaker 1: do you think a judge is going to say, yeah,
Speaker 1: you know what, I have done a bunch of improper stuff,
Speaker 1: so I think I'll remove myself. Yeah, how about never
Speaker 1: or almost never? We get motions to recuse when there
Speaker 1: are some financial entanglements, like, for example, a stock a
Speaker 1: judge owns stock in a company and that company is
Speaker 1: involved in the litigation. Okay, then the judge has a
Speaker 1: conflict and would need to remove him or herself from
Speaker 1: the case. But you know, the prosecution has relatively few
Speaker 1: tools available to remove a bad judge. If a judge
Speaker 1: makes a decision that's a case ending decision. For example,
Speaker 1: he just decides to dismiss the charges. Well, that could
Speaker 1: be appealed in the due course by the prosecution. That's
Speaker 1: one of the few things the prosecutors might be able
Speaker 1: to appeal. Otherwise we are at the whims of judges.
Speaker 1: And that was my experience for three decades trying cases.
Speaker 1: You just you draw a judge and you have to
Speaker 1: live with that judge's peculiarities. And every judge has their
Speaker 1: own peculiarities. I've just never seen any as bad as
Speaker 1: Judge Schroeder. I just you know, I guess the question
Speaker 1: that I constantly ask you, I feel like every week,
Speaker 1: is how are people supposed to have faith in a
Speaker 1: judicial system that is clearly rigged, Like how are we
Speaker 1: supposed to And this is again why I decided to
Speaker 1: put my mental and emotional health first and not follow
Speaker 1: each and every moment of this trial and just you know,
Speaker 1: would read back on the transcripts or watch the clips
Speaker 1: on cable news because I knew how I knew from
Speaker 1: the beginning where this would go right And and the
Speaker 1: fact is, much in the same way that is happening
Speaker 1: with regard to the lack of vigor and prosecution of
Speaker 1: the one six insurrectionists. What kind of country does Judge
Speaker 1: Schroeder think that he's setting up when you are allowing
Speaker 1: for there to be zero accountability for any person to
Speaker 1: be able to pick up a gun, pick up a rifle,
Speaker 1: drive across state and insert themselves right in a situation
Speaker 1: where they get to play toy soldier or toy cop
Speaker 1: and take people's lives Like what I mean, what do
Speaker 1: what does he think? What is going to happen? And
Speaker 1: follow suitan is and is that you know, without me
Speaker 1: being super dark and cynical, is that the point right?
Speaker 1: Much in the same way that Donald Trump told the
Speaker 1: Proud Boys to stand back and stand by. Is this
Speaker 1: impending decision right and the movement and what we heard
Speaker 1: from this judge essentially a very overt nod to the
Speaker 1: written houses of the world that arm up right because
Speaker 1: nothing will happen to you. We consider you a patriot. Yeah,
Speaker 1: there are politicians who are making no secret of their
Speaker 1: admiration and even respect for Kyle Rittenhouse and what he did.
Speaker 1: Matt Gates said yesterday, I believe that I will I'm
Speaker 1: considering hiring him as an intern because fill in the blanks,
Speaker 1: he killed some folks I deem undesirable. This is where
Speaker 1: we are. So I know you and I Danielle. Every
Speaker 1: week we ask ourselves and we ask each other, and frankly,
Speaker 1: neither one of us ever comes up with a good answer.
Speaker 1: How can it be? How can the citizenry continue to
Speaker 1: have faith, for example, in the criminal justice system? And
Speaker 1: I think the answer is, you know, faith in the
Speaker 1: criminal justice system is eroding. I mean, people are now
Speaker 1: viewing the Supreme Court and they do polls on these things,
Speaker 1: as you know, becoming illegitimate and hopelessly biased and political.
Speaker 1: And I think that is now permeating that some of
Speaker 1: the trial courts certainly the federal bench where we have
Speaker 1: all these ideologus appointed by Trump and Mitch McConnell. And
Speaker 1: now you see the Schrader the Schraders of the world.
Speaker 1: You know, now, what we also should at least take
Speaker 1: some comfort in is the judge who presided over the
Speaker 1: Derek Schaubin case or murdering George Floyd. He ran a
Speaker 1: trial the way that a trial should be run. I've
Speaker 1: been trying to watch some of the Arbary case. That
Speaker 1: judge seems, at least the rulings that I've seen, he
Speaker 1: seems to be doing a good job. I appeared before
Speaker 1: dozens and dozens and dozens of judges who were outstanding jurists,
Speaker 1: made me proud every day, even when they were ruling
Speaker 1: against my position. I mean, it's still out there now. Unfortunately.
Speaker 1: You know, it's often the horror stories that get all
Speaker 1: of the airtime. But you know, I think faith is eroding.
Speaker 1: Faith is eroding in all of our institutions, in the courts,
Speaker 1: in the Congress, in the executive branch, the Department of Justice.
Speaker 1: My goodness, Daniel, you ask the question, how can people
Speaker 1: have faith when it seems like the criminal justice system
Speaker 1: is rigged. Well, it's been rigged in favor of Donald
Speaker 1: Trump and company for years now, and I think, you know,
Speaker 1: we may just lose all faith and indeed we may
Speaker 1: lose our republic if Trump and company aren't brought to justice.
Speaker 1: So yeah, it's we are on a very bad trajectory
Speaker 1: right now with respect to faith and trust in the
Speaker 1: integrity of our courts. You know, I keep saying to
Speaker 1: this week that these trials that are happening right now
Speaker 1: is really about America. It is really about you know
Speaker 1: where and if we ever truly had a moral compass
Speaker 1: in this country right where you have two cases of aggrieved, enraged,
Speaker 1: armed white racists right who are on trial from the
Speaker 1: age of seventeen up until their fifties sixties, and they
Speaker 1: all they all believe that they had a license to kill.
Speaker 1: Whether you're looking at the McDaniels and they're saying, well,
Speaker 1: we had the right to create to do a citizen's arrest, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, this is their defense, you said, Kyle Rittenhouse,
Speaker 1: It's like I was doing what no one else was
Speaker 1: going to do. It's it's like, how do you know?
Speaker 1: And I genuinely ask, like, how do you make sense
Speaker 1: of what I perceive to be incredibly irrational behavior. I
Speaker 1: am enraged almost every single day at the injustices that
Speaker 1: I see, But by virtue of being a black, queer
Speaker 1: woman in America, I don't have the ability to go
Speaker 1: pick up a rifle and go take out my rage, right.
Speaker 1: I don't have the ability to go jump in a
Speaker 1: car in circle said person that I see and take
Speaker 1: them down because I don't want them on my street.
Speaker 1: And what this climate is creating is, you know, somebody
Speaker 1: had said to me the other day, it is reminiscent
Speaker 1: and possibly worse than the nineteen sixties that it is.
Speaker 1: It is. It is worse because the climate of fear
Speaker 1: and terrorism is being supported outwardly by our justice system
Speaker 1: with no backing, no no even conversation honestly that it's
Speaker 1: being happened, that's being had on the left by Democrats
Speaker 1: saying that there is something fundamentally broken. And I'm just wondering, like,
Speaker 1: is there messaging because we cannot continue to pretend that
Speaker 1: justice is blind. We cannot continue to pretend that these judges,
Speaker 1: whether they sit on the Supreme Court, of Federal court
Speaker 1: of circuit courts, that they are beyond reproach, and yet
Speaker 1: that's how we that's how we continue to view them
Speaker 1: when all evidence points to the contrary. So, you know, Glen,
Speaker 1: it's like, where do we go? What what message should
Speaker 1: we be sending out to the people about this system. So,
Speaker 1: first of all, I think many of the Republicans, particularly
Speaker 1: are elected members of Congress, are quite pleased with the direction.
Speaker 1: As you and I are appalled because it is nothing
Speaker 1: but injustice and unequal treatment, they're quite pleased with it,
Speaker 1: you know, And we can draw inferences about what their
Speaker 1: ultimate goal is, what the ultimate solution is for them.
Speaker 1: The only thing that I see remedying this. Yes, first
Speaker 1: there should be messaging coming from the Democrats, and it
Speaker 1: should involve all day, every day holding criminal politicians accountable.
Speaker 1: Because if we don't make that change, and there's not
Speaker 1: been a whole lot of public information saying they're ready
Speaker 1: to make that change, they're ready to drop a massive
Speaker 1: three seventy one conspiracy on Donald Trump and company for
Speaker 1: the crimes against the United States they inarguably committed. Until
Speaker 1: we make that change, I don't think there's any hope
Speaker 1: of changing course. I've been saying, you want to change
Speaker 1: the narrative charge Donald Trump criminally. You don't charge him
Speaker 1: to change the narrative. You charge him because he committed
Speaker 1: crimes against the United States and our people. But that
Speaker 1: will change the narrative. That's what we have to do,
Speaker 1: and if we don't, we're lost. And we don't seem
Speaker 1: to be messaging that for fear. I think that we'll
Speaker 1: be viewed as overreaching, will be viewed as engaging in
Speaker 1: political retribution, none of which could be further from the truth.
Speaker 1: We're just trying to enforce the damn laws, laws that
Speaker 1: were broken to try to destroy our democracy. There's a
Speaker 1: massive conspiracy Trump and Jeffrey Clark and John Eastman and
Speaker 1: Rudy Giuliani and Mope Brooks. Massive conspiracy. It's all right
Speaker 1: there for the indicting. We need to indict it if
Speaker 1: we have any hope of getting through this intact as
Speaker 1: a democracy. It's not high that's not hyperbole. That's the
Speaker 1: state of affairs. You know, when I watched this week
Speaker 1: as the vote came up in the House to censor
Speaker 1: Paul Goser, right, and this man and his team thought
Speaker 1: it was perfectly okay to create a violent and use
Speaker 1: scene video right like this is not again This is
Speaker 1: not some right wing not from the middle of nowhere.
Speaker 1: This is a sitting member of Congress who, through video
Speaker 1: threatened the life of his colleague. Only two Republicans voted
Speaker 1: to censure him too. And so I wonder, Glenn, like,
Speaker 1: in all honesty, do you think that it is going
Speaker 1: to take loss of life right in order for our Congress,
Speaker 1: in order for our justice department to wake up? Because
Speaker 1: you know, as I was watching the video and then
Speaker 1: I'm listening to Kevin McCarthy's nonsense on the floor, which
Speaker 1: is just my god, obscene, I am wondering, like, is
Speaker 1: that is that what's next? Because you see, you have
Speaker 1: Lauren Bobert in Congress walking around with a loaded gun
Speaker 1: on her hip. You got Marjorie Taylor Green that put
Speaker 1: up cross hairs on the faces of the member of
Speaker 1: her colleagues that she did not like. Like, you have
Speaker 1: all of this clamoring, and you have their constituency, the
Speaker 1: constituency of the McDaniels and the written houses right like
Speaker 1: it is violence the like, is there any deterrent from
Speaker 1: the path that I'm seeing towards violence? You know, I
Speaker 1: don't know that violence will have a greater impact on
Speaker 1: the Republicans than everything that has come thus far. There
Speaker 1: was violence large on January sixth, including death, and the
Speaker 1: Republicans are now, if not denying it, they're ignoring it.
Speaker 1: At the extreme, they're justified it, but they're sure not
Speaker 1: concerned about it, and they don't seem to be concerned
Speaker 1: that it could happen all over again. So, to answer
Speaker 1: your question sounds crazy, but I don't think violence will
Speaker 1: impress them or deter them from the path they have
Speaker 1: chosen because they've chosen lawlessness. By not condemning and working
Speaker 1: against what happened on January sixth, they are endorsing it,
Speaker 1: they are embracing it, they are encouraging it. So I
Speaker 1: think violence might be part of their plan, or at
Speaker 1: least they're willing to accept it as the next step
Speaker 1: in their battle to retain or regain power. You know,
Speaker 1: one of the most famous faces from the insurrection, the
Speaker 1: QAnon Shaman as he was named, was finally sentenced to
Speaker 1: forty one months jail I again made the comment that
Speaker 1: there are people that are serving much longer sentences for
Speaker 1: possession of marijuana. Still was this the right call? Forty
Speaker 1: one months? Will he in fact serve that time. Was
Speaker 1: this a signal of what is to come or should it?
Speaker 1: Is it just choked up once again to the rolling
Speaker 1: of the dice. Depending on the judges that these folks
Speaker 1: go before, you know, will depend on whether or not
Speaker 1: they get a slap on the risk or congratulations. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So we're supposed to sort of norm sentences from judge
Speaker 1: to judge to judge, to do away with the disparities
Speaker 1: of the past and sentencing. But but it's still you know,
Speaker 1: you're gonna have one judge go high and one judge
Speaker 1: go low. That is the nature of judging, and they
Speaker 1: do have the discretion. And what I would say is
Speaker 1: every offender, in every offense is and it is absolutely
Speaker 1: unique and has to be sentenced on its own merits.
Speaker 1: Was forty one months enough, I don't know for attacking
Speaker 1: and trying to overthrow the government of the United States.
Speaker 1: It sure seems like a lenient sentence. Now, the prosecution
Speaker 1: was asking for fifty one months, and I will say
Speaker 1: forty one months was a guideline compliance sentence, so the
Speaker 1: judge didn't go below where the federal guidelines place this offense.
Speaker 1: And I think forty one months is nothing to sneeze
Speaker 1: at I wouldn't want to do forty one minutes in jail,
Speaker 1: in prison, never mind forty one months. I do think
Speaker 1: we have seen a trend of the sentences to begin
Speaker 1: to rise, and I think that's a good thing. I
Speaker 1: think that's due in part because they were trying to
Speaker 1: get through the cases where you know, somebody unlawfully entered
Speaker 1: the capitol but didn't hurt anybody, didn't assault police, didn't
Speaker 1: destroy property, didn't you know, create havoc inside the capitol.
Speaker 1: Now we're getting to the more serious defendants who did
Speaker 1: engage in violence and property destruction, And I do think
Speaker 1: forty one is the kind of number that other insurrectionists
Speaker 1: will look at and take seriously and think, man, I
Speaker 1: better get in front of this trainer. I'm going to
Speaker 1: get run over by this train. And they'll consider pleading
Speaker 1: guilty and hopefully cooperating if they have information that could
Speaker 1: incriminate others. So I think we're on the right trajectory generally,
Speaker 1: and hopefully that will continue. And then at some point, Danielle,
Speaker 1: I'm hoping we see phase two of the indictments against
Speaker 1: the funders, the organizers, and the insiders and the conspirators
Speaker 1: like those folks in the war room at the Willard
Speaker 1: plotting to overthrow the government. These people must be brought
Speaker 1: to justice. This is non negotiable. This is absolutely non negotiable.
Speaker 1: My question, Danielle, is what do we do because we're
Speaker 1: in the majority. You know, Trump has maybe twenty five
Speaker 1: percent of the country on his side, and they're loud,
Speaker 1: and they're big, and they bluff from They're bluff and
Speaker 1: bluster and boasting, and they like to carry their guns.
Speaker 1: We are the majority, the people who actually give a
Speaker 1: damn about our democracy, who give a damn about equality
Speaker 1: and diversity and decency. We're in the majority. I don't
Speaker 1: think we're gonna let the twenty five percent take it
Speaker 1: all away. What do we do about it? How do
Speaker 1: we message, how do we act. We're gonna have to
Speaker 1: talk about that, but I'll be damned if we're gonna
Speaker 1: let them take it away. You know, they want to fight.
Speaker 1: I'm not advocating violence. We'll fight on all fronts, not
Speaker 1: with guns. They want to fight. They're not going to
Speaker 1: take it away, and we just have to figure out
Speaker 1: how do we go about making sure we don't let
Speaker 1: them take it. And I hear that, because let me
Speaker 1: tell you something. For the past you know, two years
Speaker 1: that we have been engaged in conversation, you have always
Speaker 1: been the hopeful one. You've always been this this steadfast one.
Speaker 1: And you know what is concerning to me is that
Speaker 1: we're all getting angrier because we're all sitting and waiting
Speaker 1: patiently right for justice to arrive. I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: the last thing that I want to talk to you
Speaker 1: about is Bannon, right, almost three weeks to indict Bannon,
Speaker 1: almost three weeks and he got to turn himself in. Glenn.
Speaker 1: I can't tell you a black or brown person that
Speaker 1: ever has the benefit of the doubt to be able
Speaker 1: to turn themselves in for a goddamn thing. Right, this
Speaker 1: man sat in the Willard Hotel, as you just stated,
Speaker 1: with a group of other people to create a clear
Speaker 1: strategic plan to overthrow the government. He was able to
Speaker 1: sit at home this entire time, go on all right
Speaker 1: wing news stations, continue with the lie, and then have
Speaker 1: the ability to turn himself in when he saw fit.
Speaker 1: What kind of signal is that sending and what hope
Speaker 1: do we have? We saw the judge right just say
Speaker 1: that we're not going to wait until the new year,
Speaker 1: which is what Bannon's attorneys wanted in order for this
Speaker 1: trial to begin that that is not going to happen.
Speaker 1: But what can we expect here given all, I mean,
Speaker 1: the runway this man was given, the leniency he was given,
Speaker 1: So a couple of things. There's a lot to unpack there.
Speaker 1: First of all, Steve Bennon is going to jail, and
Speaker 1: I can say that with confidence because he's been charged
Speaker 1: with two counts of contempt of Congress if he is convicted,
Speaker 1: and he will be, because he has zero defense. And
Speaker 1: we can talk about why that is. A sentencing scheme
Speaker 1: in the statute says he shall be confined, shall be
Speaker 1: imprisoned for no less than one month and no more
Speaker 1: than one year on each count. That's two months in
Speaker 1: jail for openers. The judge has no discretion to go below.
Speaker 1: That's a mandatory minimum sentence. I believe he'll be convicted
Speaker 1: and will probably get a year or eighteen months. And
Speaker 1: the reason he'll be convicted is because he has no defense. Daniel.
Speaker 1: First of all, he wasn't in the administration. He has
Speaker 1: the tiniest scrap perhaps of an argument that maybe there's
Speaker 1: a little bit of executive privilege. He doesn't have any
Speaker 1: executive privilege. But if he wanted to assert executive privilege,
Speaker 1: here's the way you do it. You appear on the
Speaker 1: congressional subpoena, You take the stand, you get placed under oath,
Speaker 1: and they start asking you questions. Sir, state your name, No,
Speaker 1: I invoke executive a Steve, you don't have executive privilege
Speaker 1: over your name. Donald Trump didn't bestow your name upon you.
Speaker 1: International security conversation, and then it's like, where did you
Speaker 1: used to work? Hey, Steve, did you ever talk to
Speaker 1: any members of Congress or their staff about what was
Speaker 1: going to happen on January sixth? Hey, Steve, tell us
Speaker 1: about all the conversations you had with the Proud Boys
Speaker 1: and the three percenters and you know all the other
Speaker 1: little miscreants. Right, None of that, Danielle, even if he
Speaker 1: was the dang national Security advisor, none of that would
Speaker 1: enjoy executive privilege. He has to answer all of it.
Speaker 1: He wasn't going to comply with that subpoena because he
Speaker 1: wanted to be locked up so he could use it
Speaker 1: to fund raise, so he could have a platform. He
Speaker 1: had his little camera crew in tow when he stood
Speaker 1: outside the federal courthouse last week saying, you know, I'm
Speaker 1: going to take down the Biden administration. This is going
Speaker 1: to be the case from hell, Danielle. I was in
Speaker 1: that same courthouse when Steve Bennon got dragged in by
Speaker 1: his collar to testify as a prosecution witness against Roger Stone,
Speaker 1: and he was a stone called punk. They put him
Speaker 1: up on the stand, they said, mister Bannon, who was
Speaker 1: the Trump campaign's access point to wiki leaks and Julian
Speaker 1: Asange for purposes of those weaponized emails to hurt the
Speaker 1: Clinton campaign. Steve Bannon said, I don't know, I don't remember.
Speaker 1: I can't say. Well, let's look at your grand jury
Speaker 1: testimony when you were placed under oath and you were
Speaker 1: asked who was the Trump campaign access point to Julian
Speaker 1: Osange and WikiLeaks? And you said, and I quote Roger Stone,
Speaker 1: thereby implicating incriminating Roger Stone and by extension, the Trump campaign.
Speaker 1: Isn't that true, sir? H Yeah, he was a stone
Speaker 1: called punk, because that's who is at his core, all
Speaker 1: bluff and bluster with his camera outside the courthouse. Boy,
Speaker 1: but he couldn't incriminate Roger Stone quickly enough, and he
Speaker 1: wasn't even man enough to do it. He had to
Speaker 1: be impeached with his own grand jury testimony. That is
Speaker 1: the true Steve Bannon. This is performance art and fundraising
Speaker 1: and continued grifting of Donald Trump's base. He will be convicted,
Speaker 1: he will go to prison. He will probably never cooperate,
Speaker 1: and that's fine. I wouldn't want his cooperation as a
Speaker 1: witness somebody who tried to overthrow the government. And Danielle
Speaker 1: here is my hope and even my expectation. There will
Speaker 1: be more indictments, what we call superseding indictments, and Steve
Speaker 1: Bannon will be charged for his crimes against the United States. Oh,
Speaker 1: Glenn as always, thank you so much for making the
Speaker 1: time to join wike effort, this supersized legal breakdown of
Speaker 1: where we are headed in this country. Because I am
Speaker 1: in deep concern, but will still hold on to a
Speaker 1: grain of hope that people who plotted to overthrow our
Speaker 1: government will see justice at some point. As always, power
Speaker 1: to the people and to all the people. Power, Get
Speaker 1: woke and stay woke as fuck.