Speaker 1: Good morning, peeps, and welcome to Okay f Daily with
Speaker 1: Meet your Girl Danielle Moody recording from the Home Bunker, Folks,
Speaker 1: I come to you at a time when the state
Speaker 1: of Kentucky is underwater. The images coming out of Kentucky
Speaker 1: at the time of this recording are otherworldly devastating. Full
Speaker 1: entire homes swept away in the middle of the night
Speaker 1: because of their extreme flooding, Bridges wiped away. Hundreds of
Speaker 1: people have been airlifted. At the time of this recording,
Speaker 1: sixteen people, including children, are dead. The governor has said
Speaker 1: that whole families may have perished in this flash flooding
Speaker 1: and that there is more rain to come. You take
Speaker 1: in all of these climate crises, because this is what
Speaker 1: this is right. This is not just a product of happenstance.
Speaker 1: It is not just a regular quote unquote natural disaster.
Speaker 1: It is a product of climate change. It is a
Speaker 1: product of climate denial. I think about the state of Kentucky,
Speaker 1: which has had Mitch McConnell as its senator for at
Speaker 1: least the last forty some odd years. They voted for
Speaker 1: him with fifty eight point seven percent of the vote.
Speaker 1: A man who has blocked legislation along with the entirety
Speaker 1: of the Republican Party that would actually do something with
Speaker 1: regard to climate change that just outright denies it. They
Speaker 1: voted for Donald Trump in twenty twenty sixty two percent,
Speaker 1: right at sixty two percent. And I think to myself,
Speaker 1: you know, when we are watching these images and we
Speaker 1: are feeling so bad for these people, which you should.
Speaker 1: I think about Jonathan Metzel's book Dying of Whiteness, and
Speaker 1: I think about why these people continue to vote against
Speaker 1: their best interests. Like, you're not fucking winning, right, Remember
Speaker 1: when Donald Trump's big thing would say, Oh, you're sick
Speaker 1: of winning yet, like we're going to be winning so much,
Speaker 1: you're going to be sick of winning. Is this what
Speaker 1: winning looks like. It looks like people who deny reality.
Speaker 1: It looks like people who, in order to line their
Speaker 1: pockets with money from big coal and big oil, deny
Speaker 1: their constituents the aid that they need. Because at the
Speaker 1: end of the day, folks, whether or not you know
Speaker 1: you believe in climate change, much in the same way
Speaker 1: of whether or not you believe in COVID, it doesn't
Speaker 1: stop it from happening, right, It doesn't stop it from existing,
Speaker 1: and it won't stop it from killing people. Because that's
Speaker 1: the conversation that we weren't having about time. It changes
Speaker 1: the amount of deaths that it's going to cause. From
Speaker 1: the extreme heat episodes that we've seen in this country
Speaker 1: and around the world. Hundreds of people have lost their
Speaker 1: lives this summer. Right Tens of thousands of acres of
Speaker 1: land have been burned up, homes have been burned up,
Speaker 1: flooded underwater. I mean, this is some when you're looking
Speaker 1: at what is happening right now, and if you are
Speaker 1: a person of religion or faith, this is some biblical shit, right,
Speaker 1: Like I'm just out here waiting for the locusts right
Speaker 1: between monkey pocks and fucking COVID and these extreme climate
Speaker 1: events that keep happening. Between mass shooting, It's like, dear God,
Speaker 1: you just feel like every day you're getting up and
Speaker 1: you're like bracing for impact. I wrote a piece that
Speaker 1: is upright now at Medium entitled Life on the Brink
Speaker 1: because I've been trying to wrap my mind around the
Speaker 1: feeling that I keep having. And I talk about this.
Speaker 1: I talk about it on Twitter, I talk about it
Speaker 1: on TikTok, and I talk about it here with all
Speaker 1: of you. You know, in twenty twenty, they coined the
Speaker 1: term languishing, right, this feeling of aimlessness, this sluggishness that
Speaker 1: we all had because we were locked inside, and even
Speaker 1: when you know, the doors finally flung open to the outdoors,
Speaker 1: it didn't look the way that it did in twenty nineteen.
Speaker 1: It didn't feel the way that it did. And I
Speaker 1: think for many of us, we thought that we would
Speaker 1: get the vaccine and then we would be able to
Speaker 1: pick up where we left it off, where we left off.
Speaker 1: That hasn't happened. Right. There is this this layer, this
Speaker 1: feeling of overwhelm, of consistent anxiety coupled with depression. The
Speaker 1: New York Times once again coined a term distract depression, right,
Speaker 1: because they're talking about the rise in the use and
Speaker 1: the prescriptions of antidepressants, anxiety medication, distraction medication, etc. Well,
Speaker 1: there is another term that we now know called ambient stress,
Speaker 1: which is a stress that kind of runs in the
Speaker 1: background of our minds right now, so I wrote about that.
Speaker 1: Go ahead and check it out at Medium. Coming up
Speaker 1: next today, my conversation with our friend Glenn Kirshner giving
Speaker 1: us the latest with the January sixth committee and the
Speaker 1: latest with who is testifying in front of that committee
Speaker 1: and where we think Steve Bannon will end up? Will
Speaker 1: it be thirty days, will it be sixty? Could it
Speaker 1: be up to two years? That and more is coming
Speaker 1: up next on WOKEA. Indisputable with Doctor Rashid Ricci is
Speaker 1: one of the latest shows on the TYT network and
Speaker 1: also the fastest growing news show in America. On his show,
Speaker 1: Doctor Ricci plays no games regarding policy, delivering a heavy
Speaker 1: dose of fact based truth and penetrating an analysis on
Speaker 1: all the top news stories focusing on racism, criminal and
Speaker 1: social justice, politics, police brutality, Karens, and much more. Listeners
Speaker 1: can also expect interviews with fascinating guests, political leaders, commentators,
Speaker 1: and even fiery debates with conservatives on a wide range
Speaker 1: of policy topics in the Bullpen. It is an indisputable
Speaker 1: fact that you will love this show. Listen to Indisputable
Speaker 1: with Doctor Rashad Ricci on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever
Speaker 1: you get your podcasts. If you like what you hear,
Speaker 1: be sure to subscribe so you never miss a new episode.
Speaker 1: Hey I'm David, Plots of Slaves, political Gabfest. As another
Speaker 1: election season accelerates, it can be tricky to sort through
Speaker 1: all the noise and the news. Each week on the
Speaker 1: gap Fest, John Dickerson, Emily Bathlon and I decipher the headlines,
Speaker 1: break down the races, and tell you what issues really matter.
Speaker 1: We do not always agree, We definitely do not always agree,
Speaker 1: but we always deliver thoughtful debate and we always have
Speaker 1: a good time. So subscribe to Slates Political Gapfest new
Speaker 1: episodes every Thursday. Friends. You know that whenever I have
Speaker 1: the opportunity to chat with the host of Justice Matters
Speaker 1: and MSNBC Legal contributor Glenn Kirshner, I am always thrilled. Glenn.
Speaker 1: The Department of Justice is doing what I'm referring to
Speaker 1: as a little bit of a two step. They want
Speaker 1: they seem to want to have things both ways at
Speaker 1: this moment, which is we now know, or at least
Speaker 1: we believe that we know that the Department of Justice,
Speaker 1: moving at its glacial pace, is in fact investigating people
Speaker 1: with regard to the insurrection. The architects are being brought
Speaker 1: before Grand Juries. Right. There's a little distinction that is
Speaker 1: being made in the press and with the Department of
Speaker 1: Justice We're investigating Donald Trump's actions, but we're not necessarily
Speaker 1: investigating Donald Trump. So Glenn, help me make this make
Speaker 1: sense in understanding this nuance, this two step that is
Speaker 1: being done in both the press and with the Department
Speaker 1: of Justice. Yeah, in order to really understand this, you
Speaker 1: kind of need to be immersed in the details of
Speaker 1: how the grand jury works. But the bottom line is
Speaker 1: Donald Trump's conduct, behavior, and crimes are being investigated by
Speaker 1: the grand jury. But here is why some people are
Speaker 1: pushing back and saying, you can't claim the grand jury
Speaker 1: is investigating Donald Trump. So when we go into the
Speaker 1: grand jury. For decades, I spent countless hours and the
Speaker 1: Grand Jury in Washington, DC investigating crime and indicting cases.
Speaker 1: We investigate a crime. So, for example, I believe on
Speaker 1: January seventh, the day after the attack on the Capitol,
Speaker 1: federal prosecutors walked into the Grand jury and opened a
Speaker 1: grand jury investigation. And we call it a grand jury
Speaker 1: original Why because nobody's been arrested, So it's an original
Speaker 1: investigation that we opened in the grand jury to see
Speaker 1: what the heck just went on up at the Capitol.
Speaker 1: Here's what we call that. We will caption it or
Speaker 1: name it or title it in ray possible violation of
Speaker 1: the Federal Code Section for Insurrection eighteen USC. Twenty three
Speaker 1: eighty one way by make it the number wrong. That's
Speaker 1: what we call it in ray. Possible violation of a
Speaker 1: federal law. And then we begin investigating. We're not investigating
Speaker 1: a person, We're investigating the crime of insurrection. However, as
Speaker 1: you move forward in your investigation and you learn more
Speaker 1: about who was responsible for the insurrection, you begin to
Speaker 1: focus on the conduct of the perpetrator or perpetrators. What
Speaker 1: we know now Danielle, based on great reporting by Carol
Speaker 1: Lenning and others at the Washington Post, is that she
Speaker 1: knows the questions that are being asked in the grand
Speaker 1: jury of witnesses like Greg Jacob and Mark Short. Vice
Speaker 1: President Pence's high aids right and people should also know
Speaker 1: that prosecutors are prohibited from breathing a word of what
Speaker 1: goes on in the grand jury Publicly, we can't even
Speaker 1: confirm or deny that anybody has appeared before the grand jury. Investigators, agents,
Speaker 1: detectives are prohibited from breathing a word of it. The
Speaker 1: grand jurors are prohibited from breathing a word of it.
Speaker 1: It's a secret proceeding by law. You know, who's not
Speaker 1: prohibited from talking about it? The witnesses. They're not prohibited
Speaker 1: under the rules or the law. We advise every witness. Danielle,
Speaker 1: you know, we would ask you, respect respectfully not to
Speaker 1: talk about what goes on in the grand jury, but
Speaker 1: we cannot prohibit you. So you now know Carol Lennig
Speaker 1: is talking to witnesses like Greg Jacob, Mark Short and
Speaker 1: others because what did she report? And this was blockbuster,
Speaker 1: she said, The prosecutors in the grand jury are asking
Speaker 1: the following questions, what did Donald Trump say next? What
Speaker 1: did Donald Trump do next? What did Donald Trump then
Speaker 1: arrange with his lawyers? What did Donald Trump tell Vice
Speaker 1: President Pence to do? What did Donald Trump? What did
Speaker 1: Donald Trump? What are they doing? They're investigating Donald Trump
Speaker 1: for the crimes he committed. Now can you say they've
Speaker 1: launched a criminal investigation of Donald Trump? Well know, because
Speaker 1: that's not what we all grand jury investigations. We launch
Speaker 1: investigations of crime and we investigate those responsible. So as
Speaker 1: I'm sitting here, based on everything I've seen publicly reporting, yes,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump's crimes, his behavior, his conduct is being investigated
Speaker 1: by a federal grand jury. So let me ask you this,
Speaker 1: and this is a question that I actually watched Amon
Speaker 1: Mohadeen ask our friend Joyce White Vance this week, and
Speaker 1: I want to ask you the same question he asked.
Speaker 1: You know, So, we have now been through eight hearings
Speaker 1: with the January sixth Committee. We know that they're not
Speaker 1: finished right there, they're pausing for you for summer as Congress.
Speaker 1: Does they have done over a thousand interviews, they have
Speaker 1: tens of thousands of documents. Does the Department of Justice
Speaker 1: just get to be handed over that binder because we
Speaker 1: know that they are now cooperating and collaborating right on
Speaker 1: two different tracks, because we know that there are two
Speaker 1: different tracks that are happening. But does the Department of
Speaker 1: Justice then have to redo all of that work on
Speaker 1: their own or can they work off of what the
Speaker 1: January sixth Committee has already laid out? Great question, and
Speaker 1: it's really it's kind of somewhere right in between those
Speaker 1: two ends of the spectrum. So, first of all, I
Speaker 1: am completely confident that the j six Committee will give
Speaker 1: over wholesale everything they've developed in their investigation to the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice. But I also think Benny Thompson is
Speaker 1: entitled to flex his coequal branch of government muscle and say, Okay, DJ,
Speaker 1: we know you want our work product. We've worked very
Speaker 1: hard to put it together and present it to the
Speaker 1: American people. So and by the way, y'all could have
Speaker 1: been doing this from jump as well. But we will
Speaker 1: give it to you at a time and in a
Speaker 1: manner that doesn't interfere with our responsibility to present this
Speaker 1: in a compelling way to the American people. They're entitled
Speaker 1: to do that. And you know what, if the Department
Speaker 1: of Justice wanted to subpoena those transcripts, they could. They're
Speaker 1: trying to work through the accommodation process and make the
Speaker 1: request and play nicely with a coequal branch of government.
Speaker 1: All of this stuff is probably even going over now
Speaker 1: as we speak, to the extent the J six Committee
Speaker 1: thinks they can give over five hundred of the transcripts
Speaker 1: without interfering with the remaining public hearings that they are
Speaker 1: going to want to put on. It's all going to
Speaker 1: go over, so right to your question, the Department of
Speaker 1: Justice will do two things. One, they will hopefully at
Speaker 1: light speed, review all thousand transcripts and prioritize, figure out, Okay,
Speaker 1: what witnesses are most important to present to the grand
Speaker 1: jury based on what we now know. They told the
Speaker 1: J six Committee, they will bring those witnesses in and
Speaker 1: here's what they're gonna do. I promise you, because I've
Speaker 1: done this a thousand times. They will show them their transcript.
Speaker 1: They will say, do you agree that everything you said
Speaker 1: before the J six Committee was accurate? Did you make
Speaker 1: any mistakes? Is there anything in your J six transcript
Speaker 1: you'd like to correct? And sometimes witnesses misspeak or they've
Speaker 1: learned some additional details in the intim and they want
Speaker 1: to add those, but the witnesses will generally say, yes,
Speaker 1: that my transcript of my testimony is accurate. They will
Speaker 1: then slap a grand jury exhibit sticker on it, and
Speaker 1: they will hand it to the grand jury. Done. Now,
Speaker 1: let's move on to the next witness. But if there's
Speaker 1: information that the federal prosecutors feel they need to give
Speaker 1: the grand jury to supplement what the witness said at
Speaker 1: the J six Committee hearing, they'll call that witness and
Speaker 1: they'll say, first of all, do you adopt this transcript
Speaker 1: as your testimony before this grand Jury. Yes, I do.
Speaker 1: Now we have ten twenty one hundred follow up questions
Speaker 1: we'd like to ask you about what you told the
Speaker 1: J sixth Committee. So they'll supplement the testimony of that witness,
Speaker 1: and they will quickly move through this witness after witness
Speaker 1: after witness. So the answer is yes, they will use
Speaker 1: that information and give it to the grand jury, but
Speaker 1: they'll supplement it as necessary. So it will definitely compress
Speaker 1: the time they need to get all that information before
Speaker 1: the grand jury. Oh this is exciting. Like this, this,
Speaker 1: I actually feel like we have movement. Why do you think, Glenn,
Speaker 1: that it was Pence's people who went I guess first,
Speaker 1: or at least that we know of sat before this
Speaker 1: grand jury? Why do you think it was his people
Speaker 1: as opposed to who we have thus far presented via
Speaker 1: the J six Committee. Because people like Mark Short and
Speaker 1: Greg Jacob are loyal to Mike Pence, and they know
Speaker 1: Donald Trump set Mike Pence up to be harmed, indeed
Speaker 1: to be hanged. And we know that Donald Trump expressly,
Speaker 1: out of his own mouth, said I agree with my supporters,
Speaker 1: maybe he should be hanged because he didn't have the
Speaker 1: courage to corruptly keep me in office. Man. If I
Speaker 1: worked for Mark for Mike Pence and I had any
Speaker 1: loyalty to him, you bet your ass. I would beat
Speaker 1: feet before the Committee and the Federal Grand Jury and say,
Speaker 1: let me tell you what I know about how Donald
Speaker 1: Trump set my boss up to be hurt when all
Speaker 1: my boss was trying to do was follow the law
Speaker 1: and abide by the constitution. Oh man, you could never
Speaker 1: shut me up if you did that to my boss.
Speaker 1: And I was loyal to my boss. And of course
Speaker 1: I'm going to testify truthfully because I take the oath
Speaker 1: very seriously. But I absolutely believe that Mark Short and
Speaker 1: Greg Jacob laid Donald Trump out in the Grand jury.
Speaker 1: And as Liz Cheney said, the dam is breaking. And
Speaker 1: that's why. Now what do you see? You see? You
Speaker 1: know some things you can't get rid of. Right, They
Speaker 1: keep coming back like crab Grass, Mold and Mick mulvaney. Right, So,
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, these Trump sycophants are running to
Speaker 1: the Grand Jury or running to the J six Committee.
Speaker 1: I want to tell my story too. I mean, Minutchin
Speaker 1: forgot that rodent, right. Mike Pompeo all of a sudden
Speaker 1: wants to talk because they know the damn is breaking.
Speaker 1: And the longer they cover up the crimes of Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: the more at risk they are of being criminally liable
Speaker 1: for the cover up, for accessory after the fact, from
Speaker 1: misprision of a felony. Those are crimes. When you cover
Speaker 1: up the federal crimes of another, you're committing a crime.
Speaker 1: These people have committed that crime of the cover up
Speaker 1: in Layman's terms. So all of a sudden they're like
Speaker 1: beating feet to testify about what they know. The damn.
Speaker 1: I'm not going to say the damn is breaking. I
Speaker 1: think the dam has broken. And I want to ask you, Glenn,
Speaker 1: what is it that you think that has finally What
Speaker 1: was the final sledge hammer into the dam? Right? Because
Speaker 1: you know, again I am cautiously optimistic finally in the
Speaker 1: direction that things are actually moving. But what you know,
Speaker 1: we know Liz Cheney said it. But what from your
Speaker 1: vantage point do you think was the sledge hammer or
Speaker 1: the many hits that finally has this breaking. Cassidy Hutchinson
Speaker 1: brought us inside the White House and inside the Oval office,
Speaker 1: and once that barrier was broken, and she said, let
Speaker 1: me tell you about the misconduct of Mark meadows. Let
Speaker 1: me tell you what Pat Sippoloney did. Let me tell
Speaker 1: you what Tony Arnado, this Secret Service Trump blacky, let
Speaker 1: me tell you what he did. And let me tell
Speaker 1: you what I heard Donald Trump say with his own mouth, like,
Speaker 1: I don't care if my supporters are armed, They're not
Speaker 1: here to hurt me. Let them in, take down the
Speaker 1: metal detectives, and then the entire armed mob will march
Speaker 1: on the Capitol. All of a sudden, we're now inside
Speaker 1: the Oval Office and all of those other week week
Speaker 1: week men air quotes intentional around the word men are like,
Speaker 1: oh my god, Cassidy gave it up. We gotta get
Speaker 1: in there and tell our side of the story or
Speaker 1: we're gonna look like crap. That is what I more
Speaker 1: than any other strike to the damn I think it
Speaker 1: was a very brave young woman, Cassidy Hutchinson, who will
Speaker 1: turn out to be one of the pivotal heroes of
Speaker 1: this sad side. Going back to Cassidy Hutchinson's a testimony,
Speaker 1: we learned from there that Donald Trump essentially allegedly assaulted
Speaker 1: a Secret Service agent demanded to be taken to the
Speaker 1: Capitol building. The Secret Service, according to the press said
Speaker 1: that didn't happen. January sixth, Committee asked for requested the
Speaker 1: text messages from January sixth and January seventh. They've changed
Speaker 1: platforms and coincidentally, all of those text messages on the
Speaker 1: most historic day in the country somehow turn up missing.
Speaker 1: What do you make of that? And now that these
Speaker 1: twenty four members of the Secret Service have retained private council. Yeah,
Speaker 1: this is so disturbing, Danielle, because when I was a
Speaker 1: federal prosecutor, I worked cases with the Secret Service with
Speaker 1: all of the federal law enforcement agencies in DC, and
Speaker 1: when we would seize evidence pursue into a search warrant
Speaker 1: that included cell phones and computers, and we needed to
Speaker 1: have forensic searches done on those cell phones, for example,
Speaker 1: especially if we thought the bad guy had deleted information
Speaker 1: and evidence off of that cell phone. You know, I
Speaker 1: didn't go down to the FBI lab at Quantico, even
Speaker 1: though they have great forensic services down there. We would
Speaker 1: go to the premier law enforcement agency, the United States
Speaker 1: Secret Service Forensic Sciences Division, and they were the ones
Speaker 1: who were best at retrieving deleted evidence off of cell phones.
Speaker 1: It sounds like you're making that up right, because this
Speaker 1: is now the agency that says whoops and they can't
Speaker 1: retrieve their own deleted text messages. That makes no sense
Speaker 1: to me none. Now, we can't leap to the conclusion
Speaker 1: that it's a criminal conspiracy to delete important evidence about
Speaker 1: their communications with or about Donald Trump that day. However,
Speaker 1: I believe there's enough evidence to open a criminal probe.
Speaker 1: And here's the thing. You know, they've already lawyered up right.
Speaker 1: And let me I'm not mocking the sixth Amendment right
Speaker 1: to counsel. Everybody is entitled to retain a lawyer. But
Speaker 1: there's kind of an incongruity there when you're a law
Speaker 1: enforcement agency and you have certain legal duties and responsibilities
Speaker 1: to the American people in the Constitution, and then when
Speaker 1: it looks like you did something wrong, you lawyer up. Well,
Speaker 1: that's because they're afraid of what's about to come. So
Speaker 1: here's what we do. We open a criminal probe. We
Speaker 1: have the FBI investigate what really happened. And if the
Speaker 1: Secret Service did nothing wrong, they should welcome that criminal
Speaker 1: probe because they will be exonerated. But a criminal investigation
Speaker 1: needs to be open to look into how it is
Speaker 1: they destroyed what is some of the most critically important
Speaker 1: evidence to what really happened on January sixth. You know
Speaker 1: what else I find troubling about this too, is that
Speaker 1: the watchdog group, who knew months and months ago that
Speaker 1: those text messages were no longer available, didn't tell the
Speaker 1: January sixth commit didn't alert Congress to this fact, which
Speaker 1: I mean, Glenn, it just there are too many coincidences, right,
Speaker 1: There are too many things that keep coming up that
Speaker 1: lead me to believe that there is a conspiracy here,
Speaker 1: that Trumpism is become so entrenched in our agencies that
Speaker 1: we can no longer trust that the oath that people
Speaker 1: are taking are what is actually being upheld. And it
Speaker 1: seems to me that we are in an intense moment
Speaker 1: of cover your own ass, right, you have all of
Speaker 1: these trumpe will now coming out like you had said earlier,
Speaker 1: coming out of the woodwork, saying, oh, I'll testify, I'll
Speaker 1: testify now that the quote unquote damn seems to be
Speaker 1: breaking and I you know, I guess, does do you
Speaker 1: think you know your former federal prosecutor? Does the Department
Speaker 1: of Justice take these coincidences you know, as they are,
Speaker 1: or is it like we got to open up this investigation,
Speaker 1: this investigation, that investigation because none of this makes sense. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we don't. We don't really believe in these kind of coincidences.
Speaker 1: What we do is we investigate, and if it turns
Speaker 1: out this was some sort of pre planned phone migration, okay,
Speaker 1: we'll take that into account. But here's the thing. We've
Speaker 1: learned that this deletion of information, whether criminal or innocent,
Speaker 1: happened after they were asked to preserve and produce this information.
Speaker 1: So saying trying to say, well, but it was an
Speaker 1: innocent phone migration, doesn't really cut it, because then you
Speaker 1: allowed that innocent phone migration to happen after you were
Speaker 1: asked to preserve and produce those text messages. So there
Speaker 1: really is no compelling innocent explanation based on what I've
Speaker 1: seen publicly reported, which is why we need to investigate. No,
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice doesn't take what seemed to be
Speaker 1: transparently BS explanations at face value. And now, of course
Speaker 1: we now we've seen reporting that DHS officials like Chad
Speaker 1: Wolf their text messages of God missing too, and I
Speaker 1: am shocked, said absolutely nobody. I mean, it's just because
Speaker 1: it's just so absurd. Okay, So now we mentioned this
Speaker 1: at the top, I want to get to McK mulvaney
Speaker 1: and then end with Steve Bannon. Nick mulvaney has now
Speaker 1: made himself available to the January sixth committee. It was
Speaker 1: asked by an NBC reporter, did you just walk in
Speaker 1: the door where you subpoenaed? He of course was subpoened.
Speaker 1: He was not walking in of his own reconnaissance into
Speaker 1: into that hearing. Why do you think that he's there now?
Speaker 1: And what do you think that he can offer that
Speaker 1: is different or maybe than what it is that we
Speaker 1: already know. Is he there just to bolster Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony?
Speaker 1: What do you think that his purpose is? So don't
Speaker 1: forget he was acting chief of staff to Donald Trump
Speaker 1: until Mark Meadows was made chief of staff. I don't
Speaker 1: know if that's a trade up or a trade down.
Speaker 1: You know, only the best people, for sure. And then
Speaker 1: they gave him some on voyd, a Northern Ireland kind
Speaker 1: of thing to placate him. But I urge everybody to
Speaker 1: look at the statements mc mulvaney made publicly January seventh,
Speaker 1: because he laid out Donald Trump hard for his responsibility
Speaker 1: for the insurrection. I mean really in some of the
Speaker 1: most direct terms that any of the Trump lackeys ever,
Speaker 1: you know, offered publicly. So they're obviously going back to that,
Speaker 1: in my opinion, and saying let's talk about your basis
Speaker 1: for that, and let's talk about all of the evidence
Speaker 1: and information you have about why you made those statements
Speaker 1: that Donald Trump was responsible. Here's the other thing, though,
Speaker 1: you know, let's not let's not let Mick mulvanny off
Speaker 1: the hook, because you know, your viewers should always keep
Speaker 1: in mind that he was the guy that facilitated the
Speaker 1: corrupt leveraging of Donald Trump using congressional funds to demand
Speaker 1: a dirty political favor from Ukrainian President Zelenski. I know
Speaker 1: you want to save the lives of your Ukrainian citizen
Speaker 1: with this money Congress has appropriated to you, but I
Speaker 1: need a favor, though, I need you to lie and
Speaker 1: announce that you're opening an investigation into the bidens Mick
Speaker 1: mulvaney was the one who helped facilitate that dirty deal,
Speaker 1: and then he went on TV and very publicly boasted
Speaker 1: that we do it all the time. Get over it.
Speaker 1: That's who Mick mulvaney is. And if I were on
Speaker 1: the j six Investigative Committee, or I was one of
Speaker 1: the prosecutors in the federal grand jury questioning Mick mulvaney,
Speaker 1: you can damn be sure I would be talking with
Speaker 1: him about the bribery and extortions team of President Zelenski,
Speaker 1: for which Donald Trump has never been held account So
Speaker 1: we will find out, I'm assuming in the fall, right
Speaker 1: when season two of the January sixth Committee returns for
Speaker 1: the fall sweeps. In the meantime, Steve Bannon had his
Speaker 1: day in court and was found guilty on both charges.
Speaker 1: What can we expect, Glenn from this sentence saying here?
Speaker 1: What what do you believe it will look like? So
Speaker 1: I watched that. I was in court watching that trial
Speaker 1: from start to finish, so you don't have to You're welcome,
Speaker 1: Thank you. It was It was not a lot of fun.
Speaker 1: But I want to say a couple of things about it. One,
Speaker 1: we heap a lot of criticism on the Department of Justice,
Speaker 1: but there were two remarkable federal prosecutors, Amanda Vaughan and
Speaker 1: Molly Gaston, who just tried that case expertly, and we
Speaker 1: need to give credit where credit is due, because we
Speaker 1: the people were extremely well represented by those two women
Speaker 1: in that prosecution, really, and I got to talk to them.
Speaker 1: You know, they're there. It's being prosecuted out of my
Speaker 1: old office, right, So anytime I go back to court,
Speaker 1: I feel like it's it's a reunion for me, and
Speaker 1: I really enjoy it. Now. Steve Bannon, it was a
Speaker 1: week long trial. He was the jury convicted him in
Speaker 1: less than three hours, working in a lunch break. So
Speaker 1: that wasn't just a guilty verdict. That was a statement
Speaker 1: by the jury that Steve Bennon could not have been
Speaker 1: more guilty of those two criminal charges contempt of Congress
Speaker 1: for refusing to provide documents and contempt of Congress for
Speaker 1: refusing to testify. So his sentencing is coming up in October.
Speaker 1: These are misdemeanors, so all he's facing. Listen, I don't
Speaker 1: want to do one day in prison, so I don't
Speaker 1: want to diminish the impact of any any sentence of incarceration.
Speaker 1: But each one of these convictions carry with it a
Speaker 1: thirty day mandatory minimum by law, so the judge has
Speaker 1: no discretion to go below thirty days, and there's a
Speaker 1: question of whether these two thirty day periods of incarceration
Speaker 1: can run together or have to run separately. So he's
Speaker 1: facing a minimum of at least thirty to sixty days
Speaker 1: and a maximum of two years in prison. I predict
Speaker 1: the judge will give him somewhere between six months, nine months,
Speaker 1: maybe upwards of a year for his two contempt of
Speaker 1: Congress convictions. But it really is anybody's guests at this point.
Speaker 1: Should other people right who have snubbed their nose at Congress? Right?
Speaker 1: Mark Meadows being one of them who actually was sent
Speaker 1: over to the Department of Justice. Department of Justice decided
Speaker 1: not to go after Mark Meadows for these charges. I
Speaker 1: don't know why, but should other people now look to
Speaker 1: Steve Batten as a cautionary tale, like we're not above
Speaker 1: the law, and we don't get to just say executive
Speaker 1: privilege when we have none and not answer the call
Speaker 1: of Congress. Yeah, the answer is yes, because now we
Speaker 1: can say there are concrete consequences, including prison for up
Speaker 1: to two years, if you defy a Congressional subpoena. There
Speaker 1: are three reasons why Mark Meadows may not have been
Speaker 1: large by the Department of Justice. Either, he's cooperating, or
Speaker 1: they are intending to indict him for the larger conspiracy
Speaker 1: to defraud the United States and all of the other
Speaker 1: crimes that fall under that umbrella, which is my hope
Speaker 1: for Mark Meadows. Or they just decided we're never going
Speaker 1: to indict a chief of staff to the President of
Speaker 1: the United States for defying a congressional subpoena because institutionally,
Speaker 1: that gives us too much heartburn, and if we do
Speaker 1: it once, then every chief of staff for all time
Speaker 1: moving forward will always be indicted for something if politicians
Speaker 1: are willing to do things for nefarious purposes, and we
Speaker 1: know the Republicans are. So those are the three reasons,
Speaker 1: and it may be a combination of those three reasons,
Speaker 1: but that doesn't really explain why Dan Sabino wasn't indicted
Speaker 1: for his contempt of Congress. Now, Peter Navarro was indicted
Speaker 1: for his contempt of Congress. So someday, when all of
Speaker 1: this becomes a matter of public record, which it all
Speaker 1: will in the future, maybe years in the future, then
Speaker 1: we'll get an answer to the question why did doj
Speaker 1: indict some people for contempt of Congress and decline to
Speaker 1: indict others who committed precisely the same crime. But to
Speaker 1: go right to your question, absolutely there are consequences, and
Speaker 1: I think that may be part of the reason all
Speaker 1: of a sudden everybody is sprinting into the j sixth
Speaker 1: Committee to want to testify. Yeah, that is not a coincidence,
Speaker 1: Glenn Kirshner. As always, we appreciate your breakdown of the
Speaker 1: latest and greatest and I feel like we are getting
Speaker 1: to a place where justice may in fact actually matter
Speaker 1: as you as you say every day, let's hope that
Speaker 1: we get there. Appreciate you. Thanks Daniel. That is it
Speaker 1: for me today, dear friends. As always, power to the
Speaker 1: people and to all the people. Power, get woke and
Speaker 1: stay woke. As fun