Speaker 1: Good morning, peeps, and welcome to wik a Effi Daily.
Speaker 1: On this Martin Luther King Junior Holiday, I want to
Speaker 1: start off today by talking about something that I literally
Speaker 1: just experienced and it helped me clarify some of the
Speaker 1: feelings that I've been having as of late. You know,
Speaker 1: there will be no doubt every lawmaker, Republican Democrat, over
Speaker 1: the course of today um manipulating and using Martin Luther
Speaker 1: King's words and his life to excuse their white suppose
Speaker 1: I'm as saying, to excuse their lies that they believe
Speaker 1: that because they provide holidays and pageantry and recognition to
Speaker 1: black leaders, that they had a hand in assassinating, whether
Speaker 1: by character or physically, that they can somehow redeem themselves.
Speaker 1: And what I have been sitting with over the past
Speaker 1: couple of years really is the rage that I have,
Speaker 1: and I talk about this often. I talk about this,
Speaker 1: you know, often, because it's real, and the rage that
Speaker 1: I have about the lies that I've been told about
Speaker 1: this country from its founding to the present time is true.
Speaker 1: Us living inside of the quote that if you don't
Speaker 1: understand or learn your history, that you are destined to
Speaker 1: repeat it. We are living inside the reality of that text.
Speaker 1: People don't really understand what Martin Luther King Junior in
Speaker 1: his thirties, mind you, what he did, what he meant,
Speaker 1: and what his life meant and his struggle meant to
Speaker 1: advancing equity and justice in this country. White people love
Speaker 1: to hold him now after he is dead, as they
Speaker 1: do many of our leaders who chose nonviolence in the
Speaker 1: face of unreal, lenting violence. They applaud it, but they
Speaker 1: never question why they have allowed the white community to
Speaker 1: be able to be terrorists, to be able to beat
Speaker 1: Black people for wanting to be treated with dignity and respect,
Speaker 1: to pull veterans off of buses following their tours and
Speaker 1: beat them to blindness. Right, stories that we just learn
Speaker 1: about over the course of time because they have been buried.
Speaker 1: They've been buried as a way to justify this systematic
Speaker 1: dismantling of black humanity. I'm reflecting now too, on the
Speaker 1: fact that my rage really is massed grief, that what
Speaker 1: I am feeling each and every day. And forgive me,
Speaker 1: because I may actually get incredibly emotional, but what I've
Speaker 1: been feeling each and every day over the past couple
Speaker 1: of years, and I have been projecting as rage is
Speaker 1: really this profound loss, and what did I lose exactly
Speaker 1: the sense that collectively is a nation, that we had
Speaker 1: a desire to be better, that each generation had a
Speaker 1: shared value in wanting to strive to not only produce
Speaker 1: more and be more in this capitalistic structure and this
Speaker 1: hamster wheel of productivity that we have been duped into,
Speaker 1: but into the expansiveness of allowing people to show up
Speaker 1: as they are and respect that just by virtue of
Speaker 1: them being. And what I realize, and what becomes crystallized
Speaker 1: with each and every passing day as we witness the
Speaker 1: crumbling of our republic, is that what I had believed
Speaker 1: to be true what guided me into my professional path
Speaker 1: that has been so entwined with my personal path, because
Speaker 1: I believe in justice right, and I don't believe that
Speaker 1: because you may be black or Latin X or Muslim
Speaker 1: or queer, or a woman, or live at the intersection
Speaker 1: of multiple identities, that you're undeserving or that you need
Speaker 1: to somehow consistently prove your worth, because I feel like
Speaker 1: that is what white America has always demanded of anyone
Speaker 1: who was not white, who was not siss, who was
Speaker 1: not Christian, who was not male, is to prove to
Speaker 1: me that you are worthy to stand alongside me, to
Speaker 1: sit at my table, not a table that I made right,
Speaker 1: but to me your worthiness. And then I get, as
Speaker 1: white America, to be the judge, jury, and executioner on
Speaker 1: whether or not you have made your case. And I
Speaker 1: think that what I will say that I appreciate most
Speaker 1: about young people right now is that they are occupying
Speaker 1: a different set of being that I don't need to
Speaker 1: prove shit to you right that I am worthy by
Speaker 1: virtue of my birth. That I don't need to dress
Speaker 1: like you, speak like you, love like you, assimilate into
Speaker 1: your confines of what you believe American or Americanism is.
Speaker 1: And I can't help thinking that and knowing. It's not
Speaker 1: even a thinking, it's a knowing. It's a knowing that
Speaker 1: everything that we are experiencing right now is in is
Speaker 1: a direct result of a black man and a black
Speaker 1: family occupying the White House that was built by enslaved Africans,
Speaker 1: that we as a nation, for one brief moment, believed
Speaker 1: that we could grow past our foundation, the foundation being
Speaker 1: white supremacy, being patriarchy, and being violenced that when Barack
Speaker 1: Obama said that we are not Read States, we are
Speaker 1: not Blue States, we are the United States. That I
Speaker 1: actually believe that, and I believe that at that moment
Speaker 1: that we were living in what I can only understand
Speaker 1: now in this divine capsule, not by the creation of
Speaker 1: this man, but by the creation of the answered dreams
Speaker 1: and prayers of an enslaved and brutalized people that they
Speaker 1: could continue to pray and to dream for something that
Speaker 1: they would never in fact experience, and that their children
Speaker 1: may never in fact experience, and their grandchildren may never
Speaker 1: in fact experience. But they believed in something that was
Speaker 1: so above and beyond where they were currently stationed. That
Speaker 1: is divine thinking. And what I realize that has been
Speaker 1: the fuel of my rage is how just how brief
Speaker 1: the experience was. It doesn't mean that the impact wasn't felt,
Speaker 1: but the experience of that hopefulness, of that light, of
Speaker 1: the feeling that we did this grand, beautiful thing together,
Speaker 1: that we moved outside of the initial understanding of the
Speaker 1: American project into being something bigger and bolder and more expansive.
Speaker 1: And I realize now just how extraordinary those eight years were.
Speaker 1: And I think about it in the way that posts
Speaker 1: the Civil War, that the brief experience of Reconstruction, the
Speaker 1: election of black officials, the ability at that time for
Speaker 1: black men to then be able to vote. Like I
Speaker 1: think about these brief moments, and then what would follow
Speaker 1: the audaciousness of Reconstruction, which only lasted for about twelve years,
Speaker 1: would be one hundred years of Jim Crow. And in
Speaker 1: recognizing that truth, what follows the eight years of the
Speaker 1: Obama era? Will it be a hundred years of Trumpism?
Speaker 1: Will it be a hundred years of darkness? One hundred years?
Speaker 1: A friend of mine posted a performance by the bassist
Speaker 1: and jazz musician Esperanza Spalding at the White House during
Speaker 1: the Obama years for Barack Obama's Poetry Slam where he
Speaker 1: had the rapper and actor common I believe that he
Speaker 1: was like the host that evening and so many amazing,
Speaker 1: amazing artists of color performed. And my friend just recently
Speaker 1: posted Esperanza Spalding's performance and it was her cover of
Speaker 1: Lauren Hills Tell Me, Tell Him. And I pulled it
Speaker 1: up and I was watching it and it's a three
Speaker 1: and a half minute clip and it is quiet. It
Speaker 1: is nothing but the base and the majesty of her
Speaker 1: voice in this White House, and I burst into tears.
Speaker 1: I burst into tears listening to it, because it was
Speaker 1: when I had the aha moment that they were able
Speaker 1: to rip away everything, to erase everything, and in its
Speaker 1: place put something so vapid, so hateful, so gross, in
Speaker 1: its place, to remind us that we are undeserving, unworthy
Speaker 1: of being in command of the people's house, of being
Speaker 1: in leadership of this country. So the rage that I
Speaker 1: have is truly masked grief that I haven't really grieved
Speaker 1: the loss of not the Obamas as people, but what
Speaker 1: that moment in time symbolized, not only to the country
Speaker 1: but to the world, progress, hope, a brighter future, all
Speaker 1: of which is gone now and every day is like groundhogs,
Speaker 1: a day of hell, of anxiety, of fear, of hopelessness,
Speaker 1: of darkness. So on this Martin Luther King Holiday, I
Speaker 1: think it's not only important to reflect on how we
Speaker 1: got to where we are right now, but to also
Speaker 1: light candles, say prayers, meditate on the death of possibility,
Speaker 1: because I need to be able to mourn what we
Speaker 1: have lost in a very real and definitive way in
Speaker 1: order to be able to even imagine what comes next,
Speaker 1: Because right now I feel like we are trapped inside
Speaker 1: of the eye of a hurricane and everything around us
Speaker 1: is being torn to shreds, and it is slow moving,
Speaker 1: and it is hover and it shows no sign of
Speaker 1: releasing us from its grasps. And so in order for
Speaker 1: us to even imagine, dream and turn those dreams into
Speaker 1: plans and steps, I think that today, for me anyway,
Speaker 1: is going to be a day of mourning what was,
Speaker 1: so that I can settle my soul, put it to rest,
Speaker 1: and figure out what the purpose is going forward, what
Speaker 1: the work is right? Because we always say keep fighting,
Speaker 1: keep fighting, don't give up. But what are exactly are
Speaker 1: we fighting for? Who exactly are we fighting? Because these
Speaker 1: people that are currently destroying our country are the spawn
Speaker 1: of those who have always sought to destroy our country.
Speaker 1: They aren't aging out and dying, they are reincardinating. So
Speaker 1: with the acknowledgement of that, where do we go? What
Speaker 1: do we do? And so for today, instead of planning,
Speaker 1: instead of plotting, instead of screaming, I'm going to sit still,
Speaker 1: I'm going to shed tears. I'm going to be quiet
Speaker 1: and see what comes. And I wish that for all
Speaker 1: of you as well. Coming up next is my conversation
Speaker 1: with our friend Glenn Kirshner on the latest that is
Speaker 1: unfolding at the Justice Department, the latest that is unfolding
Speaker 1: in our quests for justice, and whether or not that
Speaker 1: is actually going to happen. I wish you well, friends, folks.
Speaker 1: You know that I'm always very excited when we have
Speaker 1: our friend, the host of Justice Matters and MSNBC legal analyst,
Speaker 1: Glenn Kirshner join us each and every week here on
Speaker 1: woke f to help guide us through what is becoming
Speaker 1: an increasingly just treacherous road that I believe that America
Speaker 1: is on when it pertains to seeking justice at all.
Speaker 1: You know, Glenn, I just want to jump right into
Speaker 1: the biggest news right which is the arrest by the FBI,
Speaker 1: the indictment of Stuart Rhodes, who is the leader of
Speaker 1: the oath Keepers, who has been in conservative Republican spaces
Speaker 1: for over a decade. As as we've been learning more
Speaker 1: about him. He is a former Army paratrooper who has
Speaker 1: a law degree from Yale. And I say all these
Speaker 1: things not as if to pump him up, but for
Speaker 1: us to recognize, like I said on previous shows, that
Speaker 1: we have been fooling ourselves, Glenn, I think in thinking
Speaker 1: that the people that we are dealing with are dumb,
Speaker 1: thinking that the people that we are dealing with are
Speaker 1: under educated, right, are easily duped by Trump and Trumpism,
Speaker 1: and are just kind of along for the ride like puppets.
Speaker 1: That's not who Stuart Rhodes is. Is he? No? But
Speaker 1: I don't know that he took any constitutional law classes
Speaker 1: at Yale when he was endeavoring to get his JD. So,
Speaker 1: you know, anybody who is fooled by Donald Trump's rhetoric
Speaker 1: or persuaded by Donald Trump's nonsense. I don't like to
Speaker 1: use the word dumb, but you know, you're not a
Speaker 1: critical thinker. You can't assess for yourself what's going on.
Speaker 1: You know this, this is a really consequential indictment. I
Speaker 1: think we've only indicted a seditious conspiracy charge something like
Speaker 1: half a dozen times, dating back to the nineteen thirties.
Speaker 1: Sometimes we have some success with him in court, sometimes
Speaker 1: we don't. This is an important charge and when you
Speaker 1: read the forty eight page indictment signed by the current
Speaker 1: US Attorney for the District of Columbia, Matt Graves, who
Speaker 1: has been in the job since November fifth. You know,
Speaker 1: it's it's block busters stuff because you know, there there
Speaker 1: were four cooperating witnesses from the oathkeepers who flipped, and
Speaker 1: once that happened, you know, there was a lot of
Speaker 1: work that needed to be done by the FBI and
Speaker 1: the prosecutors to take all of the information they provided,
Speaker 1: not only sort of through their testimony before the grand jury,
Speaker 1: which I'm sure they did, but all of the electronic
Speaker 1: information and investigate it. And you know, anytime you get
Speaker 1: a huge dump of electronic information, you have to go
Speaker 1: about the hard work of subpoenaing dozens of electronic service providers,
Speaker 1: whether it's social media or cell phone providers or cell
Speaker 1: site information to figure out where each cell phone was
Speaker 1: at the moment it was communicating with other cell phones.
Speaker 1: So these things take a long time, you know, and
Speaker 1: in an investigation like this, you don't want it to
Speaker 1: take a long time. Cause we saw the crimes on video,
Speaker 1: and that's why we're so darn frustrated. We know the
Speaker 1: crimes were committed, we know the crimes were inspired and
Speaker 1: incited by Donald Trump. That's reinforced in this forty eight
Speaker 1: page indictment, by the way, so we're like, when are
Speaker 1: you going to take down the middle level criminal players,
Speaker 1: never mind the upper echelon. Because as important as this
Speaker 1: indictment is, and yes, I want to embrace it, I
Speaker 1: want to celebrate it, but and I don't want to
Speaker 1: begin to complain about the fact that they're not working
Speaker 1: their way up. But the Department of Justice, by returning
Speaker 1: this indictment indicted the lower level criminal fish for more
Speaker 1: consequential criminal charges. The next step, Danielle, has got to be,
Speaker 1: in my estimation, moving your way up to at least
Speaker 1: the middle level criminal fish, the Bannons, the Giuliani's, the
Speaker 1: don Juniors, the Eastman's, the clarks and the politicians. Right,
Speaker 1: they have been complicit in some of what was going on.
Speaker 1: I understand how long and difficult and challenging and involved
Speaker 1: these investigations are investigated, gang cases, reco cases, conspiracy cases.
Speaker 1: They take a long time, they're work intensive, but democracy
Speaker 1: still hangs in the balance. So I think we need
Speaker 1: to begin working our way up to the middle level
Speaker 1: and ultimately the upper echelon of the criminal fish. You know,
Speaker 1: one of the things that has been standing out to
Speaker 1: me with regard to what is being uncovered in this
Speaker 1: indictment is first of all, Stuart Roads and it's been
Speaker 1: all over cable news, so I know that you have
Speaker 1: either talked about it or watched it. A tweet that
Speaker 1: he not a tweet. Excuse me, I keep saying that
Speaker 1: a signal text that he sent out on December eleventh,
Speaker 1: right weeks ahead of January sixth, where he said that
Speaker 1: if Joe Biden and I'm paraphrasing Joe Biden is certified
Speaker 1: as president of the United States, it's going to be bloody, right,
Speaker 1: and that people need to get prepared. These people, these
Speaker 1: oath keepers, they are not just quote unquote regular joes
Speaker 1: like mainstream media has decided with regard to these as
Speaker 1: they refer to them MAGA tourists, right. These are people
Speaker 1: who are former and current military law enforcement first responders.
Speaker 1: They had heavy artillery that was hanging out in Virginia
Speaker 1: but a couple of miles away from the Capitol building. Oh,
Speaker 1: they're posting this, Glenn. They posted right on social media.
Speaker 1: So again I ask, and you know, because I have
Speaker 1: to tell like the honest truth, because I said, let
Speaker 1: this let Stuart Rhodes had been black let Stuart Rhodes
Speaker 1: had been in Latin X. Let him have been a
Speaker 1: Muslim American. Do you think that the Justice Department would
Speaker 1: be waiting to dot all of their eyes and cross
Speaker 1: all of their tees before they haul him in. And
Speaker 1: so it isn't just about how much work it takes
Speaker 1: to put together these cases, but it's about the urgency
Speaker 1: behind it, right, and about recognizing a threat when a
Speaker 1: threat is actually present. So again I say, you know,
Speaker 1: how is it that all of this information was hanging
Speaker 1: out in the open for anybody at the FBI, the CIA,
Speaker 1: the Justice Department to have seen and we're here over
Speaker 1: three hundred and sixty five days later. You know, it's funny, Danielle,
Speaker 1: because you just put your finger on the part of
Speaker 1: the indictment that made my heart sink, and that was
Speaker 1: the fact that they had an arsenal in a motel
Speaker 1: just across the river from the Capitol. And when I
Speaker 1: read this indictment, I thought to myself, how can it
Speaker 1: be that there are so many people in the oathkeepers
Speaker 1: who are involved in this incredibly dangerous operation and all
Speaker 1: of our law enforcement agencies missed it? Because what in
Speaker 1: a perfect world or even a competent world. What should
Speaker 1: have happened was this plot should have been discovered and
Speaker 1: there should have been search warrants prepared to be executed
Speaker 1: on the motel rooms where they were storing their arsenals
Speaker 1: of weapons. And yet none of that happened. How can
Speaker 1: that be? That's problematic. And the other thing is you
Speaker 1: mentioned how these efforts are still ongoing. And if you
Speaker 1: look at the very end of the factual part of
Speaker 1: the indictment, starting on page thirty there is a section
Speaker 1: labeled co conspirators can in you plotting after the January
Speaker 1: sixth attack on the Capitol. And here is how the
Speaker 1: factual recitation ends in the indictment. On page thirty thirty two,
Speaker 1: it says, on inauguration Day, January twenty twenty one, James
Speaker 1: messaged other individuals quote after this, if nothing happens, it's
Speaker 1: war civil war two point zero and Rhodes messages to
Speaker 1: other others to organize local militias to oppose President Biden's administration.
Speaker 1: This war is ongoing. And if DJ doesn't recognize the
Speaker 1: sense of urgency there, um, we're in trouble. You know again,
Speaker 1: you know, I tie this back to Florida Governor Ronda
Speaker 1: Santis a couple of months ago saying at a press
Speaker 1: conference that he wanted to institute his own Florida Army
Speaker 1: Right that would only listen to him, be beholden to him,
Speaker 1: be funded by the state of Florida, and there would
Speaker 1: be no federal oversight. Are we not connecting the dots here?
Speaker 1: For everything that is being said out loud? Do you
Speaker 1: think that there is the caution? And I don't know
Speaker 1: what else to call it, Glenn right, because I'm using
Speaker 1: euphemisms because there are lots of other words that I
Speaker 1: want to use. But do you think that this slow
Speaker 1: walking right is it going to be to our ultimate detriment?
Speaker 1: Because they are telling us out loud what they're doing.
Speaker 1: They want a civil war. Not only do they want one,
Speaker 1: they're prepared for it. They're armed, they have folks in
Speaker 1: every apparatus of law enforcement, of military right. They enter
Speaker 1: the Capitol building. One of the things that stood out
Speaker 1: for me a military stack right. This was and just
Speaker 1: taurists that were lost or people that were quote unquote
Speaker 1: swept up, they were organized in their formation. How How
Speaker 1: are we not wrapping our arms around this and picking
Speaker 1: up these people? Every single day and bringing not just
Speaker 1: seditious conspiracy, Glenn, but terrorism charges. And I ask you
Speaker 1: that what is the difference between these things and what
Speaker 1: is the heaviest weight that could be pushed at these people. So,
Speaker 1: first of all, there is no criminal charge of domestic terrorism.
Speaker 1: There are enhancements, sentencing enhancements for terrorists inspired violence, but
Speaker 1: that's something I think that should be addressed with legislation.
Speaker 1: But anytime I hear myself saying we need more legislation,
Speaker 1: I mean, when you look at how many laws we
Speaker 1: have on the books that go unenforced, it's laughable. So
Speaker 1: more laws are not necessarily the be all and end
Speaker 1: all of addressing this problem. But my real concern right
Speaker 1: now is we're going after the foot soldiers of the insurrection.
Speaker 1: Maybe not quickly enough, maybe we're not getting enough of
Speaker 1: them charged as we would like. But they're only the
Speaker 1: foot soldiers of the insurrection. If you leave the command
Speaker 1: structure of the insurrection intact, the politicians from Trump on down,
Speaker 1: many of the politicians who are still active members of Congress,
Speaker 1: guess what, they just recruit another batch of foot soldiers.
Speaker 1: So taking the foot soldiers out is important, has to
Speaker 1: be done. But it only accomplishes so much. In the
Speaker 1: long run. It's like putting a band aid on a
Speaker 1: gaping chess wound. You've got to take the command structure out.
Speaker 1: And that is Trump, that's any member of Congress who
Speaker 1: may have given reconnaissance tours to these people who ended
Speaker 1: up attacking the capital. And let's remember there were members
Speaker 1: of Congress giving capital tours on January fifth, at a
Speaker 1: time when the COVID prohibitions said nobody can come into
Speaker 1: the capital unless you're there on official congressional business. And
Speaker 1: you have members of Congress giving constituent tours and violation
Speaker 1: of those rules, well, those seem to be reconnaissance tours.
Speaker 1: Those people have to be held accountable or you're just
Speaker 1: enabling insurrection, you know I, Because here's the thing. The
Speaker 1: next insurrection is occurring right like it's in the works.
Speaker 1: We thought initially and was said that one six was
Speaker 1: address rehearsal. And I fully believe that, right. I fully
Speaker 1: believe that there are other plans that our current law enforcement,
Speaker 1: our current systems of justice are not paying attention to.
Speaker 1: You tweeted out that Steve Bannon should be on the lookout.
Speaker 1: What are the charges outside of seditious conspiracy that we
Speaker 1: can be looking at for these the mid level people
Speaker 1: that you were talking about, and to me, they're kind
Speaker 1: of mid high right when you're when you're leading a
Speaker 1: war room, right with Juliani and Steve Bannon. Then then
Speaker 1: you got the coordination of Steve Rhodes on the ground
Speaker 1: with the foot soldiers coordinating like a tactical attack and
Speaker 1: having a quick force task like this was an operation, right,
Speaker 1: Like I just what are what are the other charges?
Speaker 1: What are we looking at? And how long? If it
Speaker 1: took us over a year to get here sadly to say,
Speaker 1: we're pushing up against midterms, right, like, how is this
Speaker 1: getting done? So? Yeah, the reason I felt like Bannon
Speaker 1: might be in the crosshairs now after we saw the
Speaker 1: details released in yesterday's indictment is because everything Bannon described
Speaker 1: in advance of January sixth, it's going to be swift,
Speaker 1: it's going to be moving, it's going to be devastating.
Speaker 1: It's going to be like something we've never seen before
Speaker 1: come to DC. That is basically foreshadowing of exactly what
Speaker 1: the oathkeepers did on January six So here's the good news,
Speaker 1: you know, courtesy of the four oathkeepers who have flipped
Speaker 1: and are cooperating with the FBI and the federal prosecutors.
Speaker 1: And this indictment, I predict, will cause even more oathkeepers
Speaker 1: to flip. And there's a lot of talk in the
Speaker 1: indictment about encrypted apps being used to communicate securely. Well,
Speaker 1: that's great. It sounds high speed and safe and secure
Speaker 1: until people begin to flip and tell the FBI and
Speaker 1: the prosecutors what those communications were on those encrypted apps.
Speaker 1: And I have to tell you if there are people
Speaker 1: like Steve Bannon, if there are members of Congress, if
Speaker 1: there are staff members of members of Congress who communicated
Speaker 1: in any way encrypted apps, cell phones, text messages, social media, DMS,
Speaker 1: or otherwise with any of these oath keepers, they will
Speaker 1: not be sleeping soundly after they see this indictment that
Speaker 1: came down because they're gonna get got. It's a matter
Speaker 1: of time. It's taking too long. The closer we get
Speaker 1: to the midterms, I think the more problematic it becomes.
Speaker 1: I'm not one of those people who thinks it's a
Speaker 1: foregone conclusion that the Republicans will take the House. They may.
Speaker 1: If they do, we are in real trouble because the
Speaker 1: first thing they'll do, and my estimation is start issuing
Speaker 1: tons of frivolous subpoenas. They will be drafting up articles
Speaker 1: of impeachment for Biden, vice President Harris, for Merrick Garland,
Speaker 1: for you name the government official. They will probably be
Speaker 1: drafting up bogus, baseless articles of impeachment just to gum
Speaker 1: up the works and try to bring everything to a
Speaker 1: screeching halt. Of course, the one thing they can't do, Danielle,
Speaker 1: is they cannot impact the prosecutions that are up and running,
Speaker 1: and they shouldn't be able to impact the investigations that
Speaker 1: are on the verge of becoming prosecutions. Congress can't put
Speaker 1: a stop to that, but they can make it much
Speaker 1: more difficult for DOJ to do its work because they
Speaker 1: can have frivolous oversight hearings and investigations, and they can
Speaker 1: try to slow things down, but they can't put a
Speaker 1: stop to it. So but listen, if they take control
Speaker 1: of the House in twenty twenty two, we are in
Speaker 1: even more trouble than we're in presently. I mean, if
Speaker 1: they take control of the House, And unlike you, you know,
Speaker 1: I'm not an optimist, so I see the writing on
Speaker 1: the wall, particularly when we have nothing as a as
Speaker 1: a party to offer the American people in terms of
Speaker 1: legislation that they stood out in a pandemic to vote for.
Speaker 1: But that being said, the Department of Justice is supposed
Speaker 1: to operate independently, right and so, and pay attention to
Speaker 1: the road that is ahead of them and not you know,
Speaker 1: the politics. But do you think that they are dismissing
Speaker 1: just how Republicans will be after retribution and will be
Speaker 1: working to gum up the works in a way that
Speaker 1: everything that has been leading up to these moments will
Speaker 1: grind to a halt. Do are they aware of the
Speaker 1: of the politics of this moment or is it just
Speaker 1: business as usual? That's the thing that I'm trying to
Speaker 1: figure out. They're aware of it, but they're not supposed
Speaker 1: to let it impact the nature of their work, the
Speaker 1: pace of their work, the people that they are investigating
Speaker 1: for possible indictments. It's not supposed to impact that work.
Speaker 1: The reality of it is, who knows, you know, how
Speaker 1: much of this is really landing at the Department of
Speaker 1: Justice and what sense of urgency do they feel as
Speaker 1: a result. But you know, the Department of Justice I've
Speaker 1: described it as this enormous, you know, steamership that moves
Speaker 1: very slowly in one direction, and it takes an act
Speaker 1: of God to get it to move even a few
Speaker 1: degrees in a different direction. That's why we keep hearing
Speaker 1: you know. Well, you know, we do a bottom up
Speaker 1: investigation and we flip people, and we follow the evidence.
Speaker 1: I get all that, and in the ordinary criminal investortigation
Speaker 1: and prosecution, that's wonderful because it works well and it's
Speaker 1: been time tested. This is not the ordinary criminal investigation.
Speaker 1: Democracy hangs in the balance. So shouldn't you think outside
Speaker 1: the box and say, maybe we should lock up the
Speaker 1: mid level criminal fish, even the upper echelon criminal fish
Speaker 1: to send a signal. Now we have to do it
Speaker 1: based on evidence, but to send a signal that we
Speaker 1: are here to protect democracy. And you cannot continue to
Speaker 1: get away with the big lie, with poisoning the well
Speaker 1: of public opinion, with fooling the gullible into believing that
Speaker 1: the only remedy is a civil war. Two point though,
Speaker 1: maybe we need to think outside the box and treat
Speaker 1: this differently than we generally treat criminal investigations. But you
Speaker 1: know the other thing that I don't know if we're
Speaker 1: going to talk about but fit, Fanny Willis, we are
Speaker 1: always looking for here and heroes won't save us. But
Speaker 1: it really seems like there are three important data points
Speaker 1: that we learned recently that give me extreme hope that
Speaker 1: Georgia will be the first jurisdiction out of the gate
Speaker 1: with a criminal indictment of Donald Trump. And I believe
Speaker 1: that Danielle will change the narrative. Once the man is
Speaker 1: facing felony charges, it's going to be more difficult for
Speaker 1: at least the politicians to say, that's my man, Donald.
Speaker 1: I'm going to do whatever he says. I'm going to
Speaker 1: worship at the author of Donald Trump because the three
Speaker 1: data points. One, Fanny Willis said I will have a
Speaker 1: charging decision in the first half of twenty twenty two. Well,
Speaker 1: we're in the first half of twenty twenty two now,
Speaker 1: so I'm going to take her at her word. The
Speaker 1: second data point is that we learned that Donald Trump's
Speaker 1: defense lawyers met with the Fulton County prosecutors. That's so
Speaker 1: important because I've had these meetings many times over as
Speaker 1: a former career prosecutor. They happen in public corruption cases,
Speaker 1: broad cases, white collar cases, they don't really happen in
Speaker 1: violent crime cases. But we invite the defense attorneys in
Speaker 1: as the last step before we take that last journey
Speaker 1: into the grand jury and ask them to indict, and
Speaker 1: we say to the defense team, this is your time
Speaker 1: to present us any exculpatory information, any evidence you have
Speaker 1: that would make it seem like Donald Trump is innocent,
Speaker 1: like Donald Trump didn't commit the dozens of election crimes
Speaker 1: that he appears to have committed under Georgia state law.
Speaker 1: Please provide us that exonerating information and make your best
Speaker 1: argument as to why you think we're wrong, why we
Speaker 1: shouldn't proceed toward an indictment. I've been in those meetings,
Speaker 1: including in death penalty cases, and sometimes what the defense
Speaker 1: attorneys present has an impact and it causes us to
Speaker 1: rethink the direction of our investigation. All right, are they
Speaker 1: doing this in front of a judge? I'm just I'm
Speaker 1: just no. The defense behind closed doors, and usually information
Speaker 1: of it doesn't leak out. But I think Rachel Maddow
Speaker 1: broke the story two nights ago, a couple of nights ago.
Speaker 1: So um, Usually that does not alter the trajectory of
Speaker 1: our investigation, because we've done a pretty thorough invest investigation,
Speaker 1: and this is the last stage. We do it one
Speaker 1: as a courtesy and two as kind of an important
Speaker 1: check on the work we're doing. Because every once in
Speaker 1: a while, Danielle, I had a defense attorney come to
Speaker 1: me and say, Glenn, you know, I think I have
Speaker 1: some important evidence that militates against the guilt of my client.
Speaker 1: I would say, please bring it to me, let me
Speaker 1: investigate it. I've dismissed cases, Danielle after defense attorneys were
Speaker 1: brave enough to do that, because there's a calculation. Sometimes
Speaker 1: the defense attorneys will say, you know what, prosecutor are
Speaker 1: going to listen to anything I say. They just want
Speaker 1: to get my client. They want to notch in the belt,
Speaker 1: they want a conviction, And I say, bs, any prosecutor
Speaker 1: who acts that way, then other prosecutors need to drum
Speaker 1: their butts out of the job. I've had defense attorneys
Speaker 1: trust me enough to bring me exculpatory information, and on
Speaker 1: more than one occasion I ended up dismissing a case
Speaker 1: because it was evidence I didn't know existed. Right, I
Speaker 1: investigated it, I drilled down and it had an impact.
Speaker 1: Now that's in the extreme minority of the cases. But
Speaker 1: the fact that Donald Trump's defense team had this meeting
Speaker 1: with prosecutors, and here's the third data point. Two days later,
Speaker 1: what is Donald Trump send this unhinged statement saying, Oh
Speaker 1: my god, district attorneys just want to lock everybody up
Speaker 1: and ruin lives. The meeting didn't go so good. It
Speaker 1: tells me he's going to get indicted in Georgia. I
Speaker 1: would bet a buck that's my betting limit. I'm not
Speaker 1: a high roller. I would bet a Georgia will be
Speaker 1: the first one out of the blocks with a criminal
Speaker 1: indictment of Donald and the criminal indictment will be solely
Speaker 1: around the twenty twenty election. It starts with that phone
Speaker 1: call to Brad Rappensburger, just find me enough votes to
Speaker 1: corrupt and corruptly declare me the winner. And if you
Speaker 1: look at the Brookings Institute deep dive analysis, one hundred
Speaker 1: plus pages, they took all of the available evidence and
Speaker 1: they set out that I think it was a dozen
Speaker 1: or more than a dozen crimes, both felonies and misdemeanors
Speaker 1: under the Georgia state election laws that Donald Trump committed.
Speaker 1: He's going to get indicted in Georgia, probably before he
Speaker 1: gets indicted in New York and certainly before he gets
Speaker 1: indicted federally by the Department of It. I mean, and
Speaker 1: you've said it before, You've been saying it on this
Speaker 1: show and on others, that you believe that when the
Speaker 1: first indictment comes down for Donald Trump, that it will
Speaker 1: open up the floodgates because then every prosecutor will want
Speaker 1: to be the second one to indict Donald Trump, because
Speaker 1: then the pressures on them, you know, because Okay, everybody
Speaker 1: is focusing on the first jurisdiction to indict Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: The white hot glare of media and world attention is
Speaker 1: on that prosecution. But you know what, Donald Trump committed
Speaker 1: crimes in my jurisdiction too, so I now would look
Speaker 1: bad if I didn't try to hold him accountable. You're
Speaker 1: gonna see the Domino's fall. It's coming again. I'd bet
Speaker 1: a buck. And if it doesn't come, Danielle, we're done.
Speaker 1: We're done. If Donald Trump is not indicted. If Donald
Speaker 1: Trump is not indicted, he will run on the platform
Speaker 1: that the Department of Justice and every state in the
Speaker 1: Union has co signed my innocence because if I had
Speaker 1: committed crimes, the Department of Justice in every State of
Speaker 1: the Union would have in the Union would have prosecuted me.
Speaker 1: They didn't, which means they're vouching for my innocence and
Speaker 1: it reinforces the whole damn thing was a witch hunt.
Speaker 1: We have to indict Donald Trump. Oh, Glenn, you know,
Speaker 1: I pray that you are right. I hope that by
Speaker 1: the time that we get to warmer months, that these
Speaker 1: indictments are flowing like cool water, because if we don't,
Speaker 1: on top of everything else, I'm like, I just don't
Speaker 1: think we survive. I don't think that we make it
Speaker 1: to November without real violence. And frankly, I will be
Speaker 1: honest too, you know in closing, is that one of
Speaker 1: the fears that I have is that when Donald Trump
Speaker 1: is indicted, because I believe that he will be right,
Speaker 1: it's just it's when it's when I keep throwing up
Speaker 1: my hands to the world, that that will be the
Speaker 1: read alone, that will be the alarm to the oath keepers,
Speaker 1: the boogoaloo boys, all of these you know, operations to
Speaker 1: just go loose on the public. That's my biggest concern.
Speaker 1: And I pray you know that the FBI and others
Speaker 1: are are prepared, unlike how they were not prepared. On
Speaker 1: January sixth, Glenn, as always, thank you so much for
Speaker 1: making the time to join us on woke F. We
Speaker 1: appreciate you so so very much. And I am a
Speaker 1: betting person, but I only play the penny slots, but
Speaker 1: I'll up it to a dollar with you as well.
Speaker 1: All Right, all right, I think we're gonna win that bet.
Speaker 1: That is it for me today on woke F Daily.
Speaker 1: As always, Power to the people and to all the people. Power,
Speaker 1: get woke and stay woke as fuck.