Speaker 1: Good morning, Pete Sen. Welcome to Okay app Daily with
Speaker 1: Meet your Girl Danielle Moody. Recording from the Home Bunker, Folks,
Speaker 1: I'm so excited to welcome back to woke after many
Speaker 1: many weeks of our schedules not matching up and being
Speaker 1: in court. Glenn Kirschner, MSNBC Legal analyst and the host
Speaker 1: of Justice Matters here to give us a supersized breakdown
Speaker 1: into the Oathkeeper's trial that just concluded last week with
Speaker 1: a seditious conspiracy conviction four Stuart Rhodes, the founder of
Speaker 1: the Oathkeepers, as well as another one of his band
Speaker 1: of idiots. Glenn will give us an entire overview into
Speaker 1: the implications for the verts in this trial and the
Speaker 1: fact that in the upcoming weeks we have the second
Speaker 1: part of the Oathkeepers trial that will be taking place,
Speaker 1: as well as the trial of the Proud Boys. What
Speaker 1: does this mean for Jack Smith is special counsel that
Speaker 1: was appointed by Merritt Garland to oversee the investigation into
Speaker 1: Donald Trump and whether or not he can be tied
Speaker 1: to the insurrection. So we get into that and so
Speaker 1: much more on this supersize, jam packed interview with our friend,
Speaker 1: welcome him back to woke F Glenn Kirshner. Folks, it
Speaker 1: has been a long time and I am so happy
Speaker 1: and grateful to welcome our friend Glenn Kirshner back to
Speaker 1: woke F Daily. Glenn, you have been on duty in
Speaker 1: the courthouse for weeks and weeks and weeks, UM, following
Speaker 1: the UM trial of the oath Keepers right the the
Speaker 1: I believe it is five people that were on uh
Speaker 1: that were on trial, including the founder of the Oath Keepers,
Speaker 1: Stuart Rhodes. This week, UM, the verdict finally came out
Speaker 1: and it was a mixed verdict in a lot of
Speaker 1: ways that I'm sure you'll be able to walk us through.
Speaker 1: But what has made the headlines and made you a
Speaker 1: staple UH for the for this for for this week
Speaker 1: on every show on MSNBC, has been the verdict that
Speaker 1: came down for two of the oath Keeper members UM
Speaker 1: for seditious conspiracy. So I'm just going to turn it
Speaker 1: over to you to tell you know, to tell us
Speaker 1: what this mixed bag is and how important it was
Speaker 1: for the Department of Justice to have this win of
Speaker 1: this very um UH it is. It is not a
Speaker 1: commonly used charge that they have now won in this verdict. Yeah,
Speaker 1: really interesting and there's tons to unpack, and I'm so
Speaker 1: happy to be back with you. We were doing this
Speaker 1: every week forever and then all of a sudden, our
Speaker 1: schedules went sideways, So I'm glad to be back. So
Speaker 1: this really was historic. I think you can you can
Speaker 1: accurately use that word to describe a seditious conspiracy conviction,
Speaker 1: the first one for what these people did at the
Speaker 1: Capitol on January sixth, the first one the federal prosecutors
Speaker 1: have won since the mid nineties. It is a rarely
Speaker 1: brought charge, which is a good thing because that means
Speaker 1: generally people aren't trying to violently overthrow the government. But
Speaker 1: you know, it's important for so many reasons. First of all,
Speaker 1: as you say, it was a mixed verdict, But having
Speaker 1: sat through all seven weeks of the trial and full disclosure,
Speaker 1: I think I can be objective. But the lead prosecutors
Speaker 1: where my former homicide prosecutors, Jeff Nessler and Kate Racozzi.
Speaker 1: I actually tried Kate's first murder case with her when
Speaker 1: she was a young homicide prosecutor. I probably learned more
Speaker 1: from her than she learned from me. This was an
Speaker 1: expertly tried case. And Danielle, you and I beat up
Speaker 1: on the Department of Justice regularly when we believe they
Speaker 1: need a good whooping to kind of prod them into action.
Speaker 1: But I think we need to give props where they
Speaker 1: are due. And this prosecution team and this FBI team
Speaker 1: presented a masterful case to the jury. It was a
Speaker 1: mixed verdict, but having watched the evidence, I understand why.
Speaker 1: Let me just give you one example. Most importantly, they
Speaker 1: convicted the two leaders, Elmer Stuart Rhodes, the head of
Speaker 1: the Oath Keepers, and one of his top lieutenants, Kelly Megs.
Speaker 1: Convicted them of seditious conspiracy the attempted violent overthrow of
Speaker 1: the government, or an attempt to use violence to stop
Speaker 1: the execution of the laws of the United States, just
Speaker 1: precisely what they did. They tried to stop the certification
Speaker 1: of Joe Biden's win. The others were followers. Now, they
Speaker 1: did some egregious stuff, and they were all convicted of
Speaker 1: multiple felony crimes, but the jury made some common sense
Speaker 1: decisions about how far they wanted to reach with conspirator liability.
Speaker 1: This is the most compelling example Stuart Elmer Stewart Rhodes
Speaker 1: was convicted of all counts except one interfering with the
Speaker 1: duties of a police officer to use Lehman's terms, because
Speaker 1: he never went into Here's why that's so interesting for
Speaker 1: vital nerds like me. He as a member of the conspiracy, indeed,
Speaker 1: as the head of the conspiracy. Conspiracy law says every
Speaker 1: member of the conspiracy can be convicted for every single
Speaker 1: crime committed by every other member of the conspiracy, even
Speaker 1: if that person didn't participate in it. Now, the law
Speaker 1: allows that, but the law doesn't require that. So these
Speaker 1: jurors were crazy, attentive and thoughtful in the way they
Speaker 1: parsed out the evidence and did what may feel right
Speaker 1: in holding everybody responsible. But here and there saying no,
Speaker 1: we're not going to convict mindlessly on all charges. We're
Speaker 1: gonna thoughtfully assess the evidence. Now, the reason that's so important,
Speaker 1: as appellate lawyers will tell you, is that shows that
Speaker 1: this jury was not just unduly swayed or prejudiced by
Speaker 1: the nature of these egregious crimes. They still thoughtfully work
Speaker 1: through it. That actually strength strengthens the case on appeal,
Speaker 1: and I predict Judgemita presided over the trial extraordinarily. Well,
Speaker 1: all of these convictions will be appealed and all of
Speaker 1: them will be affirmed on appeal. Now, what are some
Speaker 1: of the other takeaways? Yeah, this one I love. Next
Speaker 1: week we have part two of the oath Keeper's seditious
Speaker 1: conspiracy trial. Remember that military stack going into the capital
Speaker 1: that day with these little faux soldiers with their hands
Speaker 1: on each other's shoulders, marching into the Capitol in their
Speaker 1: play military uniforms. When they got in there, seven of
Speaker 1: them split off one way to go to the House chambers.
Speaker 1: The other seven split off to go to the Senate chambers.
Speaker 1: They wanted to stop what was going on in both chambers.
Speaker 1: We only went we federal prosecutors only took on half
Speaker 1: of that stack. Next week, the second half of the
Speaker 1: stack goes on trial for seditious conspiracy. December thirteenth, the
Speaker 1: Proud Boys go on trial for seditious conspiracy. So what
Speaker 1: do these guilty verdicts of seditious conspiracy do, Danielle. Every
Speaker 1: one of those defendants is meeting with his lawyer or
Speaker 1: her lawyer right now and saying, we got we gotta
Speaker 1: renegotiate a possible guilty, hopefully with cooperation, because the government
Speaker 1: just proved beyond a reasonable doubt we all were engaged
Speaker 1: in a seditious conspiracy. We're screwed. What does that do?
Speaker 1: It will undoubtedly prompt more guilty please, probably with cooperation.
Speaker 1: And here's the best part of all of that. We
Speaker 1: know who some of the suits of the insurrection are
Speaker 1: that we're intimately involved with oath Keepers and Proud Boys.
Speaker 1: So the likelihood that we will now see indictments of
Speaker 1: Roger Stone, Alex Jones, and Mike Flynn have shot up
Speaker 1: as a result of this conviction. One last takeaway I
Speaker 1: just I wrote a piece for MSNBC Daily and I
Speaker 1: put the main takeaways in that piece. It went up
Speaker 1: a day or two ago. One last one, Even though
Speaker 1: there are so many is the prosecutors were really smart
Speaker 1: about not injecting politics into this trial. Well, how can
Speaker 1: you not inject politics into an attempt to overthrow the government.
Speaker 1: They almost never even uttered the name Donald prosecutors because
Speaker 1: they didn't want to make this about politics. They wanted
Speaker 1: to make it about violence and an attempt to undermine
Speaker 1: our democracy, regardless of political affiliation. But the defendants, including
Speaker 1: Elmer Rhodes dragged politics into the courtroom at every opportunity.
Speaker 1: Danielle I wish, I wish we could have broadcast Elmer's testimony.
Speaker 1: It was so deceitful, it was so off putting, it
Speaker 1: was so abrasive because he said to the jury the
Speaker 1: twenty twenty presidential election was unlawful and unconstitutional. And then
Speaker 1: he said to them, the disbarred Yale lawyer that he is,
Speaker 1: he said, ladies and gentlemen, I'm a constitutional expert. Now
Speaker 1: who anointed him the arbiter of the constitutionality of presidential elections?
Speaker 1: I don't know, but he thought because he determined it
Speaker 1: was unconstitutional, he and the oath keepers could do anything.
Speaker 1: They damned well pleased the first stop to Joe Biden's certification.
Speaker 1: They dragged politics into the courtroom, and the jury, by
Speaker 1: its verdicts, said to them, you were not acting as patriots,
Speaker 1: because all five of these defendants trying to say they
Speaker 1: were patriots, You weren't patriots, your traitors. We reject a
Speaker 1: big lie, reject your rigged election narrative, and all of
Speaker 1: you mo fos are guilty. That is a nice atmospheric
Speaker 1: benefit of this jury's decision to convict them for what
Speaker 1: they did on January sixth. You know, one of the
Speaker 1: things that I have been wanting to ask you is
Speaker 1: in the trial they brought in the voicemail either was
Speaker 1: a voicemailer or was a text message of Rhodes saying
Speaker 1: that they should have brought more weapons in, right, that
Speaker 1: if they had known how things were going to go out,
Speaker 1: they should have brought more weapons in. They would have
Speaker 1: strung up Nancy Pelosi. Um. And I mean it was
Speaker 1: really violent and really incredibly off putting, And I want
Speaker 1: to know how you saw the jury react to that,
Speaker 1: to that statement. That's number one and then two, you know,
Speaker 1: the other thing about the election being stolen and the
Speaker 1: election being rigged. Was there anything in his testimony where
Speaker 1: he said we were acting on behalf of the President
Speaker 1: of the United States, waiting for him to essentially either
Speaker 1: call for martial law or or I forget what it
Speaker 1: was like to there there was another act, the insurrect
Speaker 1: or waiting for the president to you know, and enact
Speaker 1: the Insurrection Act. Was any of that said in his
Speaker 1: testimony and statement? Yeah, So to answer your first question,
Speaker 1: I think you saw the jurors were pretty sort of
Speaker 1: reserved and circumspect and thoughtful. I think they really seemed
Speaker 1: to appreciate the weight and the gravity of what they
Speaker 1: were being asked to do. But particularly when the defendants testified.
Speaker 1: Three of the five defendants testified, which is really unusual
Speaker 1: in a big federal trial. They usually rely on the
Speaker 1: government's very high burden of proof and the presumption of innocence,
Speaker 1: and once they start opening their mouths, they get cross
Speaker 1: examined and they often fall apart, as did all three
Speaker 1: of these defendants. But you could see when some of
Speaker 1: the more expressly violent evidence, the posts, the texts, the
Speaker 1: recorded statements came into evidence, you could kind of see
Speaker 1: them gently recoil even though they were trying not to.
Speaker 1: And the one you mentioned, I mean, think about this defendant,
Speaker 1: Elmer Stewart Rhodes said, the only thing I regret is
Speaker 1: not that there was all this violence at the Capitol,
Speaker 1: not that the certification was actually stopped. It was delayed
Speaker 1: so they succeeded at least until they could reassemble and
Speaker 1: continue certifying Joe Biden's win. Not that people were killed.
Speaker 1: He said. The only thing I regret is we didn't
Speaker 1: bring our weapons in because we could have. I'm going
Speaker 1: to paraphrase, I don't remember his exact words. We could
Speaker 1: have killed a bunch of politicians and I would have
Speaker 1: strung up Nancy Pelosi from the lamp. Post human beings.
Speaker 1: If you have any moral core, you can't help but
Speaker 1: recoil from that, and they did. And then your second question,
Speaker 1: with respect to was there anything that expressly tied Donald
Speaker 1: Trump into what happened on January sixth, you asked were
Speaker 1: they acting at the direction of or were they waiting
Speaker 1: for orders? From the answer to your first question is
Speaker 1: they really weren't acting at the direction of I would
Speaker 1: love to say they were, because that would more firmly
Speaker 1: sort of entrench Donald Trump into this seditious conspiracy. But they,
Speaker 1: you know, el Elmer kept saying in recorded video statements,
Speaker 1: you know, mister President, invoke the Insurrection Act so we
Speaker 1: can come in with our guns ablazing. I'm taking liberties
Speaker 1: with his exact words. But if you don't, the oath
Speaker 1: keepers will take matters into their own hands. And what
Speaker 1: Danielle is Donald Trump didn't. So I think that the
Speaker 1: fair assessment of the evidence is Donald Trump didn't tell
Speaker 1: them to do it. They weren't acting at the request
Speaker 1: of Donald Trump. Indeed, he didn't even do something they
Speaker 1: wanted him to do because they invoke the Insurrection Act
Speaker 1: because that would have unleashed them and their weapons. So
Speaker 1: but it really is I don't want it to sound deflating,
Speaker 1: because the evidence is what it is. But but because
Speaker 1: the prosecutors were so careful not to bring Donald Trump
Speaker 1: into the courtroom figuratively the specter of Trump, because you
Speaker 1: don't know what the political ideologies or preferences are of
Speaker 1: the twelve people in the jury box. That doesn't mean
Speaker 1: they don't have a whole bunch more evidence. But the
Speaker 1: evidence that was presented in this trial does not lead
Speaker 1: to the conclusion that they were acting at the direction
Speaker 1: of Donald Trump. Indeed, it suggests they wanted Donald Trump
Speaker 1: desperately to do something that he wouldn't do invoke the
Speaker 1: Insurrection Act. But there's so much other evidence that warrants
Speaker 1: an indictment of Donald Trump for inciting an insurrection and
Speaker 1: attempting to overthrow the government that you know this this
Speaker 1: trial may not have forwarded the bat ball, but it
Speaker 1: doesn't really matter at the end of the day. You
Speaker 1: know there's something there are There are a couple of
Speaker 1: things that have that have come up over the last
Speaker 1: couple of weeks. One the reminder that there were members
Speaker 1: of Congress who were using the oath Keepers as their
Speaker 1: own quote unquote private detail. Right, So was that brought
Speaker 1: up in the trial or how do you think that
Speaker 1: that information can and should be used moving forward as
Speaker 1: we look ahead, as you said at the top, to
Speaker 1: the second Stas trial as well as the Proud Boys,
Speaker 1: Because when I think about Alex Jones, Mike Flynn, and
Speaker 1: Roger Stone, I think about the way in which they
Speaker 1: were utilizing these two groups as their private militia and army, right,
Speaker 1: And so how does that evidence, how does that knowing
Speaker 1: help these cases as they as they move forward. So
Speaker 1: I'll stop there because I have a follow up. Okay,
Speaker 1: So there really was no mention of members of Congress
Speaker 1: in this trial. Why because that information was unnecessary to
Speaker 1: convict the oath Keepers of the crimes with which they
Speaker 1: were charged. So again, the prosecutors were smart not to
Speaker 1: stray into political territory that was unnecessary for purposes of
Speaker 1: winning guilty verdicts. Now, yeah, there's a lot to unpack
Speaker 1: on the members of Congress front, because I do believe
Speaker 1: some of them were complicit in the insurrection. The oath
Speaker 1: keepers kept saying, we were there just providing protection, security details.
Speaker 1: But that was such full because one when they got there,
Speaker 1: they didn't protect anybody, no security details. And more importantly,
Speaker 1: the thousands of text messages and signal chats and Facebook
Speaker 1: posts where they were communicating nothing about security details. It
Speaker 1: was all we got to get our guns. We got
Speaker 1: to go put a stop to this. We gotta And
Speaker 1: then following on that, Elmer Rhodes said in one of
Speaker 1: his posts, all right, everybody, we have to keep saying
Speaker 1: Insurrection Act, Insurrection Act, Insurrection Act, because that will give
Speaker 1: us legal cover for what we're doing. So all of
Speaker 1: this we're there to provide security details to members of
Speaker 1: Congress or others was cover. It was bs right because
Speaker 1: they knew what they were really there to do. So
Speaker 1: I don't know that there was no evidence that they
Speaker 1: were providing any sort of services for members of Congress
Speaker 1: that day. But here's the thing. We know that members
Speaker 1: of Congress were complicit in any number of ways in
Speaker 1: either the insurrection itself or in providing aid and comfort
Speaker 1: to those who participated in the insurrection. And what needs
Speaker 1: to happen now and I hope Special Counsel Jack Smith
Speaker 1: is just the person to do. What we can talk
Speaker 1: more about that what needs to happen now is one,
Speaker 1: they need to see if there's enough evidence to criminally
Speaker 1: indict all of these members of Congress who are part
Speaker 1: of the insurrection. And two they need to be there
Speaker 1: needs to be a challenge to them continuing to sit
Speaker 1: as members of Congress. And here's the good news. We
Speaker 1: know that the Fourteenth Amendment, Section three, flat out says
Speaker 1: if you were a part of the insurrection and you
Speaker 1: had previously taken an oath of loyalty to the United States,
Speaker 1: like you were a member of Congress, you are disqualified
Speaker 1: from serving in public office. But the fourteenth Amendment doesn't
Speaker 1: have any mechanism to implement that. It just says, as
Speaker 1: a matter of fact, you are disqualified. Well, there is
Speaker 1: there's something brewing where when the new Congress is about
Speaker 1: to be sworn in, other members Congress can object to
Speaker 1: the insurrectionists who are about to take the oath. Stay
Speaker 1: tuned on that front, because that will take some brave
Speaker 1: members of Congress. And I believe there's some stuff brewing,
Speaker 1: and announcements will be made whenever announcements are made if
Speaker 1: it sort of ripens to that point. But first and
Speaker 1: foremot that's a political population, right, But first and foremost,
Speaker 1: if the evidence supports it, and I believe the evidence
Speaker 1: probably does support criminally indicting some of these members of
Speaker 1: Little Josh Hallie go in directionists go I got your back,
Speaker 1: I'm with you, and then you see him running away
Speaker 1: when the insurrectionists to make their way into the capital.
Speaker 1: What a punk these people? Oh man, I just want
Speaker 1: to go back to my Jersey roots. These people need
Speaker 1: to be held accountable. And if whatever your follow up is,
Speaker 1: let's do that, and then let's talk about how I
Speaker 1: think Jack Smith may may take us. I mean, you
Speaker 1: kind of answered part of it because it was going
Speaker 1: to be about, you know, these members of Congress and
Speaker 1: I can't remember. You will remember the member that was
Speaker 1: in the bulletproof vest that happened to be under his uh, Mobrooks.
Speaker 1: Mobrooks who was at the stop the Steel rally with
Speaker 1: a bulletproof vest underneath his underneath his clothing. Why would
Speaker 1: you need that? Right? No one else was in was
Speaker 1: in bulletproof regalia. Right, So you must have had some
Speaker 1: previous knowledge as to what could possibly be unfolding. The
Speaker 1: other piece, Glenn, is that now that these people, these
Speaker 1: other folks who have yet to who have yet to
Speaker 1: sit for their trials, see that this charge was now,
Speaker 1: see that this charge was upheld. Now do the hey
Speaker 1: is now the pressure to say, Okay, maybe we don't
Speaker 1: go after you for a seditious conspiracy, but you got
Speaker 1: to give up who gave you the maps, who gave
Speaker 1: you right the prior tour the day before, right to
Speaker 1: give you the lay of the land. Because I tell you,
Speaker 1: as somebody who worked on Capitol Hill, the way that
Speaker 1: those people found those unmarked offices. I worked on Capitol
Speaker 1: Hill for years and couldn't find those would still have
Speaker 1: to ask, you know, Capitol police, Oh you know, am
Speaker 1: I going to this tunnel or this place or that?
Speaker 1: And they knew to go direct So where did they
Speaker 1: get that information from? Is that the root of the
Speaker 1: route that we were going to see the Feds going after? Absolutely?
Speaker 1: And when I said these guilty verdicts will inspire oathkeeper
Speaker 1: boys to want to plead guilty and cooperate to reduce
Speaker 1: their exposure, you know, I said that will sort of
Speaker 1: directly I believe implicate guys like Flynn Stone and Alex Jones.
Speaker 1: But I also think you're exactly right. These people have
Speaker 1: information about members of Congress and what they did to
Speaker 1: enable and assist and you know, so I think these
Speaker 1: guilty verdicts up the anti on the members of Congress
Speaker 1: as well. And you know, when you talk about the
Speaker 1: Capitol Police, let me give a shout out to now
Speaker 1: my friend Harry Dunn. You know, I worked with Mike
Speaker 1: venone decades ago. We were working murder cases together when
Speaker 1: he was in one d in the DC and I
Speaker 1: was the chief a homicide. So I have known Mike
Speaker 1: for a very long time. I've only come to know
Speaker 1: Harry recently. And I was in the courtroom for his testimony,
Speaker 1: and Danielle, first of all, yes, he is a human wall.
Speaker 1: Harry is enormous, right, And Harry testified, and there was
Speaker 1: video that captured this. Harry is standing there. Yep, I
Speaker 1: get emotion. I get emotional. He's but one man. He's
Speaker 1: blocking the stairwell that leads to the Speaker's office and
Speaker 1: there are rioters and oathkeepers who and he said, y'all
Speaker 1: aren't getting by me. And he was one man who
Speaker 1: held that line and four hit for it. They called
Speaker 1: him every name in the book that you know, and goodness, gracious,
Speaker 1: there are heroic public servants that walk among us, like
Speaker 1: Harry Dunne. And you know, as much as we beat
Speaker 1: up on police and we beat up on the Department
Speaker 1: of Justice, goodness, when heroes do what Harry Dunn did
Speaker 1: and Mike Fenone and Aquilino Gonell and the rest of
Speaker 1: those officers that day, my goodness, we need to thank
Speaker 1: them and we need to honor them, and we need
Speaker 1: to remember that we have heroic public servants like Harry Dunn. Yeah,
Speaker 1: thank you for that, Glenn, because it is it is
Speaker 1: a very you know, needed reminder about who allowed for
Speaker 1: you know, true devastation not to come down on our capital,
Speaker 1: on our democracy that day, because they put their lives
Speaker 1: and their bodies on the line, and for that, I
Speaker 1: think all of us should be grateful. With a few
Speaker 1: minutes that we have left, I do want to talk
Speaker 1: about Jack Smith now and what you believe the Department
Speaker 1: of Justice is doing right because I got to tell you,
Speaker 1: you know, I think I might have text you that
Speaker 1: day when the announcement was made and I was just like,
Speaker 1: what the f is going on, you know, because this
Speaker 1: feels like another another avenue and a flashback deja vu
Speaker 1: to the Mala Report, which was well all about nothing,
Speaker 1: you know at the end of the day. So what
Speaker 1: do you think, because we hadn't had the opportunity to talk,
Speaker 1: what do you think about the Special Council, what do
Speaker 1: you think about Jack Smith? And how do you think
Speaker 1: that they're going to use, hopefully god willing, use these
Speaker 1: verdicts as a way to get to the architect head,
Speaker 1: the snakehead that is Donald Trump. Yeah, so I'm with you,
Speaker 1: Danielle that we are suffering from hero fatigue. We thought
Speaker 1: Bob Muller was going to bring it home now. I
Speaker 1: think when you read volume two of the Trump, the
Speaker 1: Trump Russia Report, where he meticulously details as many as
Speaker 1: ten felony obstruction of justice crimes by a man that
Speaker 1: he was not permitted to indict because of that stupid
Speaker 1: assj policy saying you can't indict a sitting criminal president.
Speaker 1: That is some banana republics yet right there, and I
Speaker 1: hope somebody revisits that Mueller could only do what he
Speaker 1: could do, and of course he was blocked significantly by
Speaker 1: Bill Barr and his lies about the Mueller Report. Then
Speaker 1: we had Merrick Garland coming in. Now, Merrick Garland was
Speaker 1: a prosecutor in my office thirty forty or more years ago.
Speaker 1: Then he was highly regarded. Handled cases like the Mayor
Speaker 1: Mary Ran Barry case, which was obviously politically charged, which
Speaker 1: was a difficult case on the evidence, he handled it well.
Speaker 1: He went on to handle obviously Oklahoma City bombing and
Speaker 1: other high profile cases that he supervised, he didn't try them.
Speaker 1: And then for a quarter of a century he was
Speaker 1: a judge, very good judge by all accounts. You can
Speaker 1: agree or disagree with some of the ideological underpinnings of
Speaker 1: some of what he decided. But I think we learned
Speaker 1: over the last eighteen months that Merrick Garland lost his
Speaker 1: prosecutorial chops and was running the Department of Justice in
Speaker 1: the Age's office more like a judge's chambers than a
Speaker 1: really aggressive prosecutor's office at this most dangerous moment in
Speaker 1: our nation's history. So I feel like we're being fooled up,
Speaker 1: maybe a third time. Jack Smith and Danielle like you.
Speaker 1: It's funny. In advance of the announcement, I actually talked
Speaker 1: on air or somewhere or maybe it was just in
Speaker 1: my head. I actually did say I don't think appointing
Speaker 1: a special counsel now is necessary or is a good thing,
Speaker 1: because look look at how when they appointed Bob Muller,
Speaker 1: he had to start from scratch. He had to hire investigators,
Speaker 1: higher prosecutors, hire a support staff, stand up in office,
Speaker 1: begin investigating. That takes a long time. But then, but
Speaker 1: I did say back then, the only way I could
Speaker 1: see it working is if they put him in place
Speaker 1: to oversee all of the investigations that have been up
Speaker 1: and running for a year and a half now and
Speaker 1: say now accelerate them. So the first thing I did
Speaker 1: when I saw I was in the courthouse covering the
Speaker 1: Oathkeepers trial. I saw the announcement. Actually a reporter got
Speaker 1: an advanced notice of it, and she pulled me over.
Speaker 1: She's like, Glenn, look at this. So the first thing
Speaker 1: I did is I reached out to my friends who
Speaker 1: had worked directly for Jackson when he was the head
Speaker 1: of the Public Integrity Section. And what I learned from
Speaker 1: people that I respect immensely is that Jack Smith is
Speaker 1: a real, without fear or favor kind of guy. He
Speaker 1: abhors political corruption. He abhors obstruction of justice and witness tampering.
Speaker 1: And he is fearless, and he's willing to take politically
Speaker 1: charged cases that are not sure things. And he walked
Speaker 1: that walk. He prosecuted Virginia governor Republican Governor Bob McDonald,
Speaker 1: won convictions, and then years later on appeal, the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court didn't like the fact that the Department of Justice
Speaker 1: could so aggressively go after high politicians and they reverse
Speaker 1: the convictions. That's not a failing of Jack Smith and
Speaker 1: his team, that's a failing of our Supreme Court, surprise,
Speaker 1: protecting high government high government officials. So and then he
Speaker 1: went after He went after a Democrat Senator Bob Edwards,
Speaker 1: John Edwards, excuse me, John Edwards, who was running for
Speaker 1: president right. He went after him for campaign finance violations.
Speaker 1: It was a hard case to make. In what happened,
Speaker 1: the jury hung. They actually acquitted on one count and
Speaker 1: hung on the other five hard case. He didn't win it,
Speaker 1: but he wasn't afraid to bring it. What did he do?
Speaker 1: He brought a case against the Republican member of Congress,
Speaker 1: a representative a zer As Ease I forget his last name.
Speaker 1: Precisely charged that Republican member of Congress with bribery, extortion,
Speaker 1: and racketeering, convicted him. What did he do next? He
Speaker 1: brought a criminal execution against Bob Menendez, a Democrat senator
Speaker 1: from New Jersey. Not a strong case, but he said,
Speaker 1: I don't care. I have enough evidence to get the
Speaker 1: question to the jury. Public corruption is the devil. I'm
Speaker 1: bringing it. The jury hung and they opted not to
Speaker 1: read retry the case. After the hung jury, Danielle, what
Speaker 1: has he done? Oh, we brought a case against the
Speaker 1: CIA officer for miss handling classified information and he won
Speaker 1: convictions in that case. What has he done? He's gone
Speaker 1: after Republicans, He's gone after Democrats. He's gone after people
Speaker 1: who abuse the public trust. He hasn't won every cases.
Speaker 1: I swear, give me a prosecutor on my team who
Speaker 1: has lost some cases because they brought the tough cases
Speaker 1: against high government officials. That's my kind of teammate. Based
Speaker 1: on everything. And then he's putting pen to paper and
Speaker 1: filing stuff on Thanksgiving Day in the Eleventh Circuit saying
Speaker 1: Donald Trump's lawyers are wrong, Judge, don't be fooled. And
Speaker 1: he had the goods to back it up. I mean,
Speaker 1: and he went to the Hague to prosecute war criminals.
Speaker 1: He is, he has gone after some of the worst
Speaker 1: of the worst in this world, and now he is
Speaker 1: going after one of the worst of the worst in America,
Speaker 1: a former criminal president. Let's get it on. Let's get
Speaker 1: it on. Okay. You know, I always appreciate your insight, Glenn,
Speaker 1: because of your obvious thirty years of prosecutorial experience and
Speaker 1: the fact that you still have friends and talk to
Speaker 1: folks inside of the Department. And I will say that
Speaker 1: I'm in a wait and see, right, I'm gonna I'm
Speaker 1: you know, because I have had and you have had
Speaker 1: our hopes dashed way too many times since the beginning
Speaker 1: of the Trump presidency, after the Trump presidency, during the insurrection,
Speaker 1: after the insurrection, until now. So I will wait and
Speaker 1: see because I believe that we are in for come January,
Speaker 1: an entire fucking circus with the Republicans taking control of
Speaker 1: the House. But you just gave me a sliver of
Speaker 1: hope that if there are in fact objections to those
Speaker 1: that are going to be sworn in, and in fact,
Speaker 1: like there should be Republicans that are quaking in their
Speaker 1: boots right now about what these other oath keepers and
Speaker 1: proud boys can say about their involvement in providing recon
Speaker 1: work to the insurrection, then that gives me something, and
Speaker 1: I hope it gives our listeners something to hang onto
Speaker 1: that we will see, you know, because I tell you
Speaker 1: that the January sixth anniversary, it's gonna be what this
Speaker 1: second year anniversary, and none of the architects of the
Speaker 1: insurrection have been indicted, have been tried, have been put
Speaker 1: in prison, and so it is hard to hold on
Speaker 1: to hope that we will see it. But what you
Speaker 1: have given us today, as always, provides, you know, some
Speaker 1: ray of light in the clouds that we have been
Speaker 1: existing in for for the last couple of years. So
Speaker 1: you know, for Glenn, you know, as always, I appreciate you.
Speaker 1: I'm so happy to have had this supersized unpacking of
Speaker 1: where we've been over the last several weeks and hopefully
Speaker 1: a window into where we're going in January, and we're
Speaker 1: back on track, all right, Glenn, appreciate you so much.
Speaker 1: That is it for me today, dear friends on Woke
Speaker 1: a f as always, power to the people and to
Speaker 1: all the people. Power get woke. And stay woke as
Speaker 1: fuck