Speaker 1: Good morning, peep Sen, and welcome to WIKA, a daily
Speaker 1: with Meet your Girl Danielle Moody. Recording from the Home Bunker. Folks,
Speaker 1: you know it's been Let's just think about this for
Speaker 1: a minute. It's been almost almost two entire years since
Speaker 1: the insurrection January sixth, twenty twenty one. We are but
Speaker 1: a handful of months away from January sixth, twenty twenty three.
Speaker 1: And while the Department of Justice has issued indictments charges
Speaker 1: sentencing against the quote unquote foot soldier of the insurrection,
Speaker 1: those people that were physically inside of the building, and
Speaker 1: then they have extended to those people that were not
Speaker 1: physically inside but were indeed coordinating. We have seen sedition
Speaker 1: charges put up against members of the Oath Keepers and
Speaker 1: the Proud Boys, and yet, dear friends, as Glenn will
Speaker 1: tell us in our upcoming interview, none of the actual suits,
Speaker 1: as opposed to the boots that were on the ground,
Speaker 1: have been indicted. Glenn and I will get into a
Speaker 1: conversation about where we are right now as it pertains
Speaker 1: to Donald Trump and the stolen classified documents and the
Speaker 1: fact that Judge A. Lean Cannon is a Trump lackey
Speaker 1: has no business having the position, the lifetime position that
Speaker 1: she does have that Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump stuffed
Speaker 1: down our throats after Donald Trump lost the election. She
Speaker 1: was obviously placed there for a reason. And I say
Speaker 1: to Glenn, what is the fucking point of us as
Speaker 1: a whole people who actually believe in the rule of law,
Speaker 1: people that are forced to follow the rule of law
Speaker 1: while others that are rich, white, wealthy, siss hetero do not.
Speaker 1: How are we going to seek accountability and justice inside
Speaker 1: of a system that is already rigged? This is my
Speaker 1: real fundamental question. If you know, and if there are
Speaker 1: other legal experts on both the right and the left
Speaker 1: that are saying that Judge Cannon's decisions and even her
Speaker 1: written opinions are motherfucking suspect, then how were we continuing
Speaker 1: to operate above board when we know that these people
Speaker 1: are doing everything in their power to thwart the rule
Speaker 1: of law and to ensure that Donald Trump never sees accountability. Now,
Speaker 1: Trump most recently was on Somebody's right wing bullshit talk
Speaker 1: show where he stated unequivocally what sounded most definitely like
Speaker 1: a threat to me, where if in fact justice does
Speaker 1: begin to rain down at some point like a mighty
Speaker 1: stream that the people, the American people, he says, will
Speaker 1: not stand for it. Well, what people? Because a majority
Speaker 1: of Americans, not your sycophant twenty five percent, but a
Speaker 1: majority of Americans actually know that if they had a
Speaker 1: quarter of the crimes or thought or perception of the
Speaker 1: crimes that Donald Trump has committed, they would be under
Speaker 1: a jail. So how is it then that Donald Trump
Speaker 1: thinks that a majority of Americans are gonna what? As
Speaker 1: Lindsay Graham had also threatened take up arms to defend
Speaker 1: this piece of ship. I mean, maybe they will, but
Speaker 1: I know this, this I know for certain in my heart,
Speaker 1: and I have been thinking about this, folks, and I
Speaker 1: have been meditating on this. They want war. I have
Speaker 1: said it on this show a number of times. I
Speaker 1: have said it on television. Marga wants war. And I
Speaker 1: don't think that they will rest until they get their war,
Speaker 1: because they are so goddamn trigger happy, right, wanting to
Speaker 1: take down any black and brown person that they see,
Speaker 1: wanted to shoot up women, wanting to do all of
Speaker 1: these hateful things. Right, But they ain't gonna win. I
Speaker 1: don't care how many bullets and guns that they have
Speaker 1: on their side because, as doctor Britney Cooper had said
Speaker 1: many many months ago on this show, they can't kill us,
Speaker 1: all right, And so my feeling about their very bold,
Speaker 1: threatening language that they have continued to use, readying their
Speaker 1: folks in this new era of stand back and stand by.
Speaker 1: I'm telling our team pay attention, keep your eyes wide open,
Speaker 1: keep your chin up, keep your back straight, because they
Speaker 1: ain't going to win. I don't know how long we
Speaker 1: will be in this fight. I have said that I
Speaker 1: believe that it will get bloodier before it gets better.
Speaker 1: But I'm telling you they will not win. Coming up next,
Speaker 1: my conversation with our friend host of Justice Matters and
Speaker 1: MSNBC legal analysts Glenn Kirshner to delve into all of
Speaker 1: our legal woes. Indisputable with Doctor Rashid Ricci is one
Speaker 1: of the latest shows on the TYT network and also
Speaker 1: 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 analysis on all
Speaker 1: the top news stories focusing on racism, criminal and social justice, politics,
Speaker 1: police brutality, Karens and much more. Listeners can also expect
Speaker 1: interviews with fascinating guests, political leaders, commentators, and even fiery
Speaker 1: debates with conservatives on a wide range of policy topics.
Speaker 1: In the Bullpen, it is an indisputable fact that you
Speaker 1: will love this show. Listen to Indisputable with Doctor rashad
Speaker 1: Ricci on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: If you like what you hear, be sure to subscribe
Speaker 1: so you never miss a new episode. Get a behind
Speaker 1: the scenes look at Comedy Central's The Daily Show on
Speaker 1: Beyond the Scenes, an original podcast from The Daily Show
Speaker 1: with Trevor Noah. Every week, host Roy Wood Junior goes
Speaker 1: deeper with the notable guests and experts from the Emmy
Speaker 1: Award winning series. Together, they use comedy to tackle current
Speaker 1: topics from gentrification to gun laws and take a closer
Speaker 1: look at how and why these topics matter. Listen to
Speaker 1: Beyond the Scenes from The Daily Show with Trevor Noah
Speaker 1: on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcast or wherever you get
Speaker 1: your podcast. New episodes every Tuesday. Folks, you know that
Speaker 1: whenever we have the opportunity to speak with our friend,
Speaker 1: the host of Justice Matters in MSNBC legal analyst Glenn
Speaker 1: Kirshner to work us through our legal woes. I am
Speaker 1: greatly appreciative, and I say legal woes, Glenn, because right now,
Speaker 1: as a sign says, behind you, we're trying to figure
Speaker 1: out in America if justice actually does matter. We're trying
Speaker 1: to figure out if there is any integ already left
Speaker 1: in our Department of Justice as we are continuing with
Speaker 1: this dance with this BS that is happening down in
Speaker 1: Florida with Judge Cannon. The latest, well at least the
Speaker 1: latest that I know, but I know you'll give us
Speaker 1: a deeper overview, is that the Department of Justice has
Speaker 1: said okay to the Trump judged, one of the two
Speaker 1: judges that they have put up to be a quote
Speaker 1: unquote special Master. Again, I don't even understand what we
Speaker 1: are doing here when the Department of Justice has already
Speaker 1: gone through the documents that they took over a month ago,
Speaker 1: that they took back over a month ago from Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: So give us an overview, Glenn as to where we
Speaker 1: are with this nonsense, because I don't know what else
Speaker 1: to call it other than that, Yeah, boy, and we
Speaker 1: got woes, you know, and I do think there is
Speaker 1: plenty of integrity at the Department of Justice. But there's
Speaker 1: too damn much timidity at the Department of Justice. I
Speaker 1: don't know why they are declining to indict criminal charges
Speaker 1: that we all know there is adequate evidence to indict.
Speaker 1: Maybe we can circle back to that in a few minutes.
Speaker 1: Let's take on Judge A. Lean Cannon, the completely unqualified
Speaker 1: federal judge that was installed by Donald Trump and Mitch
Speaker 1: McConnell's Senate after Donald Trump lost the election. So she
Speaker 1: was put there for a reason, and now she's doing
Speaker 1: precisely what Trump and McConnell had hoped she would do,
Speaker 1: make illegitimate rulings to protect Donald Trump. That's what she's doing.
Speaker 1: And I don't say that lightly or cavalierly. So you know,
Speaker 1: there's so much to dislike about how she's handled this litigation.
Speaker 1: Donald Trump stole classified information, top secret materials, national defense documents,
Speaker 1: which is why this is also an Espionage Act case,
Speaker 1: and information about the nuclear capabilities of foreign countries. He
Speaker 1: stole it all, then he illegally concealed it at Mara Lago,
Speaker 1: including after it had been subpoenaed. The fact that he
Speaker 1: violated that subpoena gives rise to an obstruction of justice charge,
Speaker 1: which is a twenty year offense. And then when the
Speaker 1: FBI seized it all, took back the stuff he stole
Speaker 1: from the government and began to investigate Donald Trump's crimes,
Speaker 1: Judge Alien Cannon swooped in and entered a stop work order.
Speaker 1: You may not investigate the crimes of Donald Trump as
Speaker 1: they pertain to these documents. That's insane, that's arguably beyond
Speaker 1: the powers of the judiciary. But that's what she did.
Speaker 1: And she said, So, what I'm going to do, because
Speaker 1: Donald Trump has asked me to, is a point a
Speaker 1: special person, a third party, somebody independent, to go through
Speaker 1: all this stuff and see if the FBI and the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice should really get to use this evidence
Speaker 1: that Donald Trump stole from the federal government to investigate
Speaker 1: the crimes of Donald Trump. Another level of insanity. The
Speaker 1: Department of Justice said, well, first of all, Judge, we've
Speaker 1: seen it all and that's important for our purposes. But
Speaker 1: now what we need to do is investigate what Donald
Speaker 1: Trump did with it so we can determine just how
Speaker 1: badly he's damaged our national security. Let me give you
Speaker 1: an example to just bring it home concrete. If Donald
Speaker 1: Trump took a classified document, stole it from the White House,
Speaker 1: folded it up, put it in his breast pocket, brought
Speaker 1: it tomorrow Lago, and never showed it to or exposed
Speaker 1: it to anyone. Well, that's an investigation that the FBI
Speaker 1: would have to conduct, and then they would hand off
Speaker 1: the investigation to the intelligence community, the CIA and the like,
Speaker 1: and they would assess the threat and the damage to
Speaker 1: our national security. Now, I think we can agree that
Speaker 1: the threat might be very low if they could prove
Speaker 1: through an investigation that nobody saw it after Donald Trump
Speaker 1: took it to mar Lago. That same document, Donald Trump
Speaker 1: steals it from the White House, goes down to mar Lago,
Speaker 1: and starts letting our adversaries see it, copy it, snap
Speaker 1: pictures of it. Maybe he sells it to our enemies,
Speaker 1: leverages it for a favorable business deal. Well, then if
Speaker 1: the FBI conducted that investigation and learned those facts and
Speaker 1: pass them off to the intelligence community, the threat to
Speaker 1: our national security might be extraordinarily high, and our overseas assets,
Speaker 1: their lives might be at risk. Judge Cannon said, you're
Speaker 1: not permitted to do that investigation. That's insane and dangerous.
Speaker 1: She's facilitating Donald Trump's compromise of our national security. Now
Speaker 1: what the Department of Justice said, as well, you know what, Judge,
Speaker 1: you're blowing our minds. That's my interpretation of their pleadings,
Speaker 1: all of which I've read. But if you feel like
Speaker 1: there has to be this independent, third person special master
Speaker 1: to review some of the stuff we took from our
Speaker 1: lago some of what we took might have some attorney
Speaker 1: client privilege information in it, not the classified documents, other
Speaker 1: stuff that we seize during the execution of the search
Speaker 1: ward that we were authorized to seize, and we've already
Speaker 1: segregated that out with what's called a privilege review team.
Speaker 1: The Special Master is welcome to look at that and
Speaker 1: see if we should be able to use it in
Speaker 1: our investigation or if it enjoys attorney client privilege such
Speaker 1: that we shouldn't be allowed to use it. That, Danielle
Speaker 1: is actually the appropriate use of a special Master. And
Speaker 1: the judge said, yeah, I don't care. I don't care
Speaker 1: what you filed, I don't care what Trump's team filed.
Speaker 1: This is the way it's going to be. So the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice said, well, we're appealing the whole ball
Speaker 1: of Wax to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals because Judge,
Speaker 1: you're out to lunch. Factually and legally, here's what she said.
Speaker 1: Let me just finish. I know, I'm finish. I got
Speaker 1: eight questions. Yeah, the most absurdain thing I've ever heard
Speaker 1: of federal judge saying. She said, we know that the
Speaker 1: government asserts, the Department of Justice claims that there were
Speaker 1: a whole bunch of classified documents. Sure, we've seen pictures
Speaker 1: of the classified banner with everything else redacted out of
Speaker 1: many of these documents that were taken from Donald Trump's office,
Speaker 1: not from a storage room. And we know even Donald
Speaker 1: Trump's defense attorneys have never have never claimed that he
Speaker 1: declassified anything. They've never made that claim in court. They
Speaker 1: said he has the power to, but they've never said
Speaker 1: he has declassified anything. She then said in her written order,
Speaker 1: I don't believe. I don't believe there's even classified information
Speaker 1: there that echoes a Donald Trump talking point. Well, many
Speaker 1: people are saying nothing was classified. That is the most
Speaker 1: insane thing I think I've ever heard out of the
Speaker 1: mouth of a federal judge. She doesn't believe, she said,
Speaker 1: I'm not willing to accept the Department of Justice's representation
Speaker 1: that there were classified materials there. So here's the thing, Glenn,
Speaker 1: and I appreciate the overview. So here's one of the
Speaker 1: billion questions that I have. First of all, we know
Speaker 1: that Judge Aileen Cannon should not have this job. We
Speaker 1: know that she is I'm going to use the word corrupt.
Speaker 1: And why do I say that? Because she was appointed
Speaker 1: after Donald Trump lost. She has no resume that matches
Speaker 1: the position that she is going to behold and for
Speaker 1: a lifetime appointment, and she is using Trump maga QAnon
Speaker 1: talking points in her own writings. We know this, So
Speaker 1: you tell me why the hell there isn't an investigation
Speaker 1: and a case into this judge. Why do we just
Speaker 1: accept accept the fact that we know that there are
Speaker 1: a myriad of judges that have been appointed simply for
Speaker 1: the protection of Donald Trump, And we say, those of
Speaker 1: us that believe in the actual rule of law are like, oh, well,
Speaker 1: I guess there's nothing we can do here, and we
Speaker 1: just continue to operate above board, knowing that everything is
Speaker 1: actually stacked against us with this band of criminals. You know, Daniel,
Speaker 1: I wish I could give you a satisfactory answer to
Speaker 1: why the Department of Justice doesn't rise to the challenge
Speaker 1: of take on corrupt judges. Now we have seen that
Speaker 1: they apparently are unwilling, as is Congress to take on
Speaker 1: corrupt Supreme Court justices, which you know has the potential
Speaker 1: of wreaking so much havoc in our country, like I
Speaker 1: don't know having women's constitutional privacy rights revoked, right, but
Speaker 1: we seem entirely unwilling to take that on by opening hearings,
Speaker 1: I would call them impeachment inquiries to investigate what it
Speaker 1: is that Thomas and Alito and Kavanaugh and Coney, Barrett
Speaker 1: and Gorsuch did when they misrepresented their true views about
Speaker 1: Rowe versus Wade in their confirmation hearings under oath. That
Speaker 1: doesn't guarantee that if we open those hearings we tackle
Speaker 1: that hard issue on behalf of the American people. Doesn't
Speaker 1: guarantee that the House will pass articles of impeachment, but
Speaker 1: if they do, it also doesn't guarantee that the Senate
Speaker 1: will convict them. But if we don't take the first
Speaker 1: step on the road to accountability, then we've already lost
Speaker 1: the battle, which is precisely what you just were asking about.
Speaker 1: Why are we unwilling to take the first step on
Speaker 1: the road to accountability that I don't have an answer for.
Speaker 1: I wish it would change because it I mean to me,
Speaker 1: I guess because I operate in reality and on Earth one.
Speaker 1: It does not make sense for us to continue. And
Speaker 1: I mean us as part of those that are into
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice that are not a punch a
Speaker 1: part of Trump's lying like criminal syndicate. How are we
Speaker 1: pursuing accountability and responsibility and we're hedging our bets on
Speaker 1: people that were installed to block that path altogether? How
Speaker 1: are we continuing to say that, oh, yes, we're going
Speaker 1: to bring the best case possible if the decision has
Speaker 1: already been made before you open up your mouth and
Speaker 1: present your evidence. If a judge is sitting there and
Speaker 1: saying to you, here are folders that literally friggin read
Speaker 1: classified information, and then you have the audacity to say, oh,
Speaker 1: but I don't believe that there's class that's like me, say, okay,
Speaker 1: I don't believe this guy is blue. I don't believe
Speaker 1: water is wet. Right, just because you are not operating
Speaker 1: in the place of reality doesn't mean that that's where
Speaker 1: the rest of us are. And I just don't understand
Speaker 1: how we think that we are going to hold onto
Speaker 1: our democracy and our institutions if we are not literally
Speaker 1: digging down to the core and getting rid of all
Speaker 1: of the rot. I don't know. I'm with you, and
Speaker 1: you know, something needs to change. I think one of
Speaker 1: the one of the areas where we can be somewhat
Speaker 1: hopeful is the upcoming mid terms. I mean, I think
Speaker 1: there is reason to be more hopeful now that we're
Speaker 1: gonna get you know, a something of a blue tidal wave,
Speaker 1: and the decency will be rising in America after that.
Speaker 1: But you know, decency rising is important, but accountability rising
Speaker 1: is more important. And that's what we need. You know,
Speaker 1: we need people who are willing to take the fight
Speaker 1: to the bastards, even if, even if we are not
Speaker 1: guaranteed to be successful. You know, people when they took
Speaker 1: on the J six Committee public hearings, people were like, well,
Speaker 1: that's not gonna matter. Nobody's going to get impeached. Congress
Speaker 1: can't prosecute anybody. All of that is true, and yet
Speaker 1: look at how important those public hearings have been to
Speaker 1: expose to the American people the crimes of Trump and company.
Speaker 1: That's very much a hearts and minds campaign, and if
Speaker 1: you can convince the hearts and minds, then maybe an
Speaker 1: unduly timid DOJ will follow with criminal charges. Here's my question, Glenn, though,
Speaker 1: with regard to the January sixth committee hearings, and we
Speaker 1: know that there is at the end of this month,
Speaker 1: we will pick up where we left off at the
Speaker 1: beginning of the summer. You know, they are doing a
Speaker 1: masterful job, as you're saying, in terms of presenting the
Speaker 1: evidence to the people, and as if the American public
Speaker 1: are the jurors right to really understand and sift through
Speaker 1: this information. However, what I keep hearing from people that
Speaker 1: listen to my shows and follow me is that, yeah, Danielle,
Speaker 1: we have these we have this pile of evidence. If
Speaker 1: it were me or you, we would be in jail already.
Speaker 1: So what good is this if we're doing if this
Speaker 1: is just for pomp and circumstance and nothing that they
Speaker 1: believe is actually going to happen. And again, the more
Speaker 1: evidence that comes up, the more things that we learn
Speaker 1: about what Donald Trump has done and the inaction that
Speaker 1: is taking, just continue any with quote unquote investigations. People
Speaker 1: are losing faith and so my question for you is,
Speaker 1: do you think that there is potential that the January
Speaker 1: six committee hearings will actually backfire in terms of presenting
Speaker 1: again this mount everest worth of information and then there's
Speaker 1: no prosecution on the side of the Department of Justice
Speaker 1: that actually has the power to prosecute. I'm not worried
Speaker 1: about it backfiring because even the transparency that it's bringing
Speaker 1: to us, it helps. It will help in the midterms,
Speaker 1: it will help us understand the crimes of Trump and company,
Speaker 1: and I absolutely believe it is moving the Department of
Speaker 1: Justice prosecutorial needle. We have seen DJ, excuse me, We've
Speaker 1: seen the j six Committee investigate certain areas, expose certain
Speaker 1: crime and what are we here. The next thing we
Speaker 1: know DJ is subpoenaing those same people to testify before
Speaker 1: the grand jury. That's an indication that they're criminally investigating
Speaker 1: and moving toward prosecution. Now let me use this as
Speaker 1: an example. I did a video last night that was
Speaker 1: a little dark because I wasn't finding much optimism on
Speaker 1: the horizon yesterday and it had to do with Mark Meadows.
Speaker 1: So we just learned that the Department of Justice issued
Speaker 1: a grand jury subpoena to Mark Meadows, the highest Trump
Speaker 1: official that has been subpoenaed to that criminal investigation. Yeay,
Speaker 1: I thought right, and then I read precisely what they
Speaker 1: subpoened from Mark Meadows, not testimony. They subpoened the exact
Speaker 1: say wait, stick with me, though, this is where I
Speaker 1: was last night, exactly where you are. But I tried
Speaker 1: to step back into my prosecutorial days and figure out
Speaker 1: what was going on. So they subpoened exactly what Mark
Speaker 1: Meadows previously gave to Congress text, messages, emails, that whole
Speaker 1: thousand plus trunch of stuff, documents and messages and evidence.
Speaker 1: And I thought to myself, Okay, that doesn't really forward
Speaker 1: the information ball because Congress already has all that stuff
Speaker 1: from Mark Meadows before Mark Meadows jumped off the cooperation
Speaker 1: train and said, I'm not abiding by your subpoena for
Speaker 1: testimony for which Mark Meadows should have been indicted, because
Speaker 1: that's contempt of Congress that was referred by Congress to
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice for prosecution. And DJ said, yeah,
Speaker 1: we're not feeling it. We don't care that a crime
Speaker 1: was committed by an executive branch official against Congress. A
Speaker 1: coequal branch of government. We ain't indicting him. That is
Speaker 1: some bs right there, and that still angers me. But
Speaker 1: let me go back to the original point. I thought
Speaker 1: to myself, well, why would DJ only subpoena exactly what
Speaker 1: Congress already has here? Is why if we're building a
Speaker 1: criminal case in the grand jury, we don't want to
Speaker 1: be in a position if we have this great evidence,
Speaker 1: like incriminating text messages and emails from Mark Meadows talking
Speaker 1: to other Trump co conspirators and Trump, maybe Trump himself,
Speaker 1: we don't want to get that evidence from Congress. Why
Speaker 1: because then you have a chain of custody problem, and
Speaker 1: it's harder for us to introduce those things into evidence
Speaker 1: in court. We need to get them from the hot,
Speaker 1: grubby criminal hands of Mark Meadows. So they subpoenaed them
Speaker 1: directly from Mark Meadows, which does away with a chain
Speaker 1: of custody problem, where, oh, great evidence, We're gonna go
Speaker 1: get it from Congress and it's going to go through
Speaker 1: several hands and even though it originally came from Mark Meadows,
Speaker 1: we've got it now. That's an evidential read problem. So
Speaker 1: the way I read this subpoena, which on the surface
Speaker 1: seems like less than DJ should be subpoenaing. Is they're
Speaker 1: doing it for evidentiary reasons, I would perhaps be doing
Speaker 1: the same thing. Of course, I also would have indicted
Speaker 1: Mark Meadows long ago. So in terms of the other
Speaker 1: the rest of the cabal of surrounding Donald Trump, John
Speaker 1: Eastman's phone was also subpoena It isn't that correct? Right?
Speaker 1: Let me ask you this. I mean, I know that
Speaker 1: we're not tech people, but how are you subpoenaing themand's
Speaker 1: phone over almost two years later and thinking that this
Speaker 1: hasn't been wiped? Right? Like I just I'm confused about
Speaker 1: the timing and it being the only thing as opposed
Speaker 1: to I'm subpoena in all of your electronics, you know,
Speaker 1: Like I what do you make of that? Two points
Speaker 1: two observations? One, electronic footprints are forever. So the fact
Speaker 1: that there was stuff that we know should be on
Speaker 1: his phone that he deleted, that's actually incriminating information. But
Speaker 1: more importantly, John Eastman's crimes didn't stop on January sixth
Speaker 1: or January seventh. He continued, I'm convinced to crime, to
Speaker 1: cover up, to lie, to be engaged in a conspiracy
Speaker 1: to get away with the crimes he committed in trying
Speaker 1: to reinstall Donald Trump unconstitutionally for a second term. And
Speaker 1: all of that stuff continued. It continued, I believe, until
Speaker 1: the moment they seized his phone. So we don't know
Speaker 1: the precise scope of the criminal evidence that served as
Speaker 1: a basis for the search warrant. But I would bet
Speaker 1: a buck that's my betting limit. I'm not a high roller.
Speaker 1: I would bet a buck. It ain't just the stuff
Speaker 1: from January sixth. It is everything else John Eastman had
Speaker 1: been doing up until the moment a federal judge ruled
Speaker 1: found there's probable cause that there is evidence of crime
Speaker 1: in John Eastman's phone. Right now, FBI, you're authorized to season. Okay,
Speaker 1: last question for you this week, speaking of phones, where
Speaker 1: are we with the Secret Service? You know, and the
Speaker 1: fact that they had phone messages that were available on
Speaker 1: January fourth and fifth, nothing on the sixth and seventh,
Speaker 1: But we pick right back up on the eighth they say, oh,
Speaker 1: we had a server transfer. They're supposed to be an
Speaker 1: investigation into there to understand whether or not Cassidy Hutchinson,
Speaker 1: who testified before the January sixth committee and said that
Speaker 1: there was indeed a scuffle between Donald Trump and Secret
Speaker 1: Service when he demanded, because I am the President, to
Speaker 1: take me to the capital on January sixth. He ends
Speaker 1: up tossing catch up in the White House? Where are
Speaker 1: we with that investigation? Or again has that fallen by
Speaker 1: the waist side? As far as far as you know, So,
Speaker 1: I think Zoe Lofgren in the last day or so
Speaker 1: announced that there have been a ton of Secret Service
Speaker 1: text messages and related information pouring in to the January
Speaker 1: sixth committee. Apparently they've been found Oh yeah, that this
Speaker 1: was broke recently, and they said, and she said, there
Speaker 1: is a lot of stuff that is very enlightening in there.
Speaker 1: So the natural follow up questions are, one, do you
Speaker 1: think you have it all? Or might the Secret Service
Speaker 1: have selectively held some back? And then two, why were
Speaker 1: you told in the first instance none of this stuff existed?
Speaker 1: It was deleted and it was irretrievable. Somebody lied to
Speaker 1: Congress about that. But listen, at least now they're getting
Speaker 1: the information and they're going to have to pour through it.
Speaker 1: And I suspect we're going to be hearing more about
Speaker 1: that in the next public hearing. By the way, let
Speaker 1: us let us show you what's some of these Secret
Speaker 1: Service text messages on and around January sixth reveal. Glenn,
Speaker 1: if you had to take a guess, and I know
Speaker 1: that you're not a gambler, but if you had to
Speaker 1: take a guess on some of the highlights that you
Speaker 1: think that we will hear on September twenty eight, what
Speaker 1: do you think that they're coming back for season two
Speaker 1: of the Trump indictment Conspiracy? What do you think they're
Speaker 1: coming back with? Yeah, a great question, And I think
Speaker 1: because we have been flipping members of these white nationalists
Speaker 1: and white supremacists and hate groups, the three Percenters, the
Speaker 1: Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, and we've been flipping our
Speaker 1: way up the chain, it looks like I think we're
Speaker 1: going to hopefully begin to hear more about the pipeline
Speaker 1: between these hate groups and the White House. And that
Speaker 1: pipeline runs through the Willard War Room, through the Giuliani's
Speaker 1: and the Bannons and the Stones and the Flynns, and
Speaker 1: it goes to Mark Meadows and it goes to the President.
Speaker 1: I think we're going to begin to hear more about that,
Speaker 1: at least I hope we begin to hear more about that,
Speaker 1: and gosh, dang it, I hope we start to get
Speaker 1: some indictments of some of the suits of the insurrection,
Speaker 1: not just the boots of the insurrection, because every day
Speaker 1: we are imprisoning folks who attack the capital, and yet
Speaker 1: we have not seen one second of accountability for any
Speaker 1: of the suits of the insurrection. And I hope that
Speaker 1: that's coming. Okay, Glenn, Yeah, let me tell you. As always,
Speaker 1: I cannot frankly, I cannot wait until our conversation that
Speaker 1: comes following the next hearing. I know that we have
Speaker 1: a couple of weeks yet, but I'm really looking forward
Speaker 1: to that conversation and what we are going to hear.
Speaker 1: But as always, we appreciate you making time for Woke
Speaker 1: FP Daily and we will see you again next week.
Speaker 1: Great being with y'all, see you next week. That is
Speaker 1: it for me today, dear friends on Woke f as always,
Speaker 1: Power to the people and to all the people. Power,
Speaker 1: get woke and stay woke. As buck get a behind
Speaker 1: the scenes look at Comedy Central's The Daily Show on
Speaker 1: Beyond the Scenes, an original podcast from the Daily Show
Speaker 1: with Trevor Noah. Every week, host Roy Wood Junior goes
Speaker 1: deeper with the notable guests and experts from the Emmy
Speaker 1: Award winning series. Together, they use comedy to tackle current
Speaker 1: topics from gentrification to gun laws, and take a closer
Speaker 1: look at how and why these topics matter. Listen to
Speaker 1: Beyond the Scenes from the Daily Show with Trevor Noa
Speaker 1: on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcast, or wherever you get
Speaker 1: your podcast. New episodes every Tuesday.