Speaker 1: Good morning, peeps, and welcome to Okay f Daily with
Speaker 1: me your Girl, Danielle Moody recording Not So Live from
Speaker 1: the Brooklyn Cilarium. Folks, I am taking a little bit
Speaker 1: of a break this week, but don't you worry. You
Speaker 1: will be set up with brand new shows all week
Speaker 1: long because you're worth it. Um. You know, it strikes
Speaker 1: me that this week I just want you all to
Speaker 1: wrap your mind around this. This week is eleven months
Speaker 1: since the insurrection. When the calendar year changes, we will
Speaker 1: be looking at the one year anniversary of an attempt
Speaker 1: to overthrow the government. And I don't know about you,
Speaker 1: but I sure as hell don't feel like our Department
Speaker 1: of Justice, this administration, the legal system in general right
Speaker 1: have done their due diligence and operated with a sense
Speaker 1: of fucking urgency that an attempt to overthrow the government
Speaker 1: and any other goddamnation would have received. When I announced
Speaker 1: and shared with you all the fact that IDA a
Speaker 1: nonpartisan organization, international organization that has been following for decades
Speaker 1: democracies that are in danger, that are struggling or numbering
Speaker 1: the amount of autocracies and authoritarian and dictator regimes that
Speaker 1: are around the globe because it signals there are red
Speaker 1: flags and alarms that go off when you realize that
Speaker 1: there is a global shift that is happening. It isn't
Speaker 1: just something that is happening in the United States. But
Speaker 1: when this organization that has been doing this type of
Speaker 1: research for decades, for the first time ever names the
Speaker 1: United States of America as a backsliding democracy and it
Speaker 1: is not receiving wall to wall fucking media coverage the
Speaker 1: way that every cable outlet gave to Trump for free
Speaker 1: when he was a candidate, and then continued to do
Speaker 1: so after he became president, and even still was spreading racism, xenophobia, misogyny,
Speaker 1: you name it, he was doing it, and they still
Speaker 1: gave him airtime. But when an international organization that labels
Speaker 1: right democracies authoritarian political regimes around the world says that
Speaker 1: in twenty nineteen, it became apparent that the United States
Speaker 1: was visibly deteriorating, that is what the report said. Again,
Speaker 1: you would think that alarm bells would be sounding, that
Speaker 1: there would be some type of, you know, force behind
Speaker 1: this administration to not only fucking roll out policy, which
Speaker 1: is important and I'm not saying that it isn't. But
Speaker 1: what difference does it matter if we are building bridges
Speaker 1: and fixing subways, if we are living in a fascist regime.
Speaker 1: What difference does it make right if we are talking
Speaker 1: about structures when the actual foundation of our democracy is
Speaker 1: crumbling underneath our feet, and no one seems to really
Speaker 1: give a shit that they still want to believe that
Speaker 1: we're going to have a functional midterm election. I want
Speaker 1: to tell I want to alert you all to something
Speaker 1: that I came across on Friday of last week, and
Speaker 1: it was tweeted out by the president of the NAACP
Speaker 1: Legal Defense Fund, Cherylyn Eiffel Folks RNDA Santis the death Santis,
Speaker 1: the governor of Florida, is looking into and has made
Speaker 1: suggestions around creating a civilian army that only he would control.
Speaker 1: That would be the Florida Army that would not, as
Speaker 1: he stated, be encumbered by Pentagon oversight. He rolled this
Speaker 1: out in a way that one if they wanted to
Speaker 1: not pay attention to anything that has been going on
Speaker 1: in Red States since twenty twenty and before that, right
Speaker 1: with Donald Trump at the helm. He says that in
Speaker 1: order to combat increasing hurricanes and storms, that we need
Speaker 1: essentially our own army and battalion. But then he also
Speaker 1: said that we need this as protection against the federal
Speaker 1: government against a kind of socialist right what he alluded
Speaker 1: to regime Ron DeSantis is saying out loud what all
Speaker 1: of us have been saying who have been paying attention
Speaker 1: to the fact that these motherfuckers want a civil war.
Speaker 1: This is why they are hailing the Kyle rittenhouses of
Speaker 1: the world, because they are hopeful that with an acquittal
Speaker 1: right with a non not guilty wasn't even an acquittal
Speaker 1: with a not guilty verdict for murdering two people and
Speaker 1: wounding a third, that they can begin to recruit right
Speaker 1: these people to bear arms and take up arms against
Speaker 1: their own country. They are telling you with over three
Speaker 1: hundred voter suppression laws that are at four hundred by
Speaker 1: some calculations at this point in the past fucking year.
Speaker 1: On top of four hundred voter suppression laws, now you
Speaker 1: have a governor of one of the largest states in
Speaker 1: the country saying that he wants to build his own
Speaker 1: army that only he will control, that he can then
Speaker 1: deploy said army against our national army and troops. I
Speaker 1: want you to wrap your fucking minds around this. Eleven
Speaker 1: months after we had an insurrection where these people who
Speaker 1: actively beat, terrorized and killed members of the police, which
Speaker 1: they want a chant blue lives matter until blue lives
Speaker 1: are inconveniently in their way of hanging. The vice president right,
Speaker 1: have received months in prison, maybe a couple of years.
Speaker 1: And now you have a governor that is telling you
Speaker 1: that he's going to build his own army. Who what
Speaker 1: do you think is going to happen next? Right? What
Speaker 1: do you think that is going to happen in Georgia? Right?
Speaker 1: And in Texas? And all of those people that wanted
Speaker 1: to play G I Joe on one six right, many
Speaker 1: of which we learned were former or current military, former
Speaker 1: or current police, who are just itching to take up
Speaker 1: their arms, take up their arsenals, and take down as
Speaker 1: many people as they possibly can. And then they will say, well,
Speaker 1: we were acting on what orders from I guess what,
Speaker 1: Ron de Santis, the president of Florida. This is where
Speaker 1: this shit is headed. And you know, I continue, people
Speaker 1: are like, no, the Supreme Court's not going to take
Speaker 1: away Brown versus the Board of Education, when in fact,
Speaker 1: in her fucking confirmation hearing, Amy COVID, Barrett made mention
Speaker 1: to the fact that Brown versus the Board of Education
Speaker 1: wasn't settled law. The law that desegregated schools in the
Speaker 1: United States, she believes, is not settled law. So if
Speaker 1: you're looking at the actions being taken by the Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: because you're paying attention to what Gorsich and Kavanaugh and
Speaker 1: Roberts and COVID are saying, and then you're looking at
Speaker 1: now the announcement that Ron DeSantis is making in Florida,
Speaker 1: and then you take into consideration all of the voter
Speaker 1: suppression laws. I mean, my god, it is not a
Speaker 1: backsliding democracy. It is not a democracy. We are headed
Speaker 1: into minority rule in this country. This is American apartheid
Speaker 1: that they are setting up where you will have no
Speaker 1: legal fucking recourse because they have bought all of the judges.
Speaker 1: So just again, take a big picture look at what
Speaker 1: has been set up since early two thousands, since the
Speaker 1: Obama error. You had Mitch McConnell hold a Supreme Court
Speaker 1: seat hostage and say that he's going to make this
Speaker 1: president a one term president. He holds a Supreme Court
Speaker 1: seat hostage four nine months without any fight back, pushback
Speaker 1: or legal action taken by the Obama administration. They just
Speaker 1: shrug and fucking take it. Then you have the installation
Speaker 1: right of a Donald Trump who stole the twenty sixteen
Speaker 1: election because don't make me believe right that Putin and
Speaker 1: others who we learned did in fact interfere with the election,
Speaker 1: didn't place Donald Trump in power to begin with, right,
Speaker 1: So that's number two. Then you have number three, with
Speaker 1: three hundred federal judges being planted around the country by
Speaker 1: Mitch McConnell, many of which who I continue to say
Speaker 1: the American Bar Association said they were unqualified for these
Speaker 1: lifetime positions, and there are folks as young as thirty
Speaker 1: fucking five that received those appointments. Ask me how many
Speaker 1: fucking federal judges Biden has sat as we get ready
Speaker 1: to come up upon the first year of his administration.
Speaker 1: You have that, Then you have a global health pandemic
Speaker 1: where you have a party that has become a pro
Speaker 1: virus death cult. So that's going to continue to run rampant.
Speaker 1: And now we have a new variant that we need
Speaker 1: to wait about four to six weeks to figure out
Speaker 1: if it's going to be more deadly, more transmissible, if
Speaker 1: it's going to evade the vaccines, if you're going to
Speaker 1: need to get a booster now every fucking six months,
Speaker 1: every four months, who knows. But this is all a
Speaker 1: part of the Republican master plan and to make just
Speaker 1: to put insult to injury, Mitch McConnell then turns around
Speaker 1: and announces, guess what, Republicans don't have a platform for
Speaker 1: the midterm elections. They have no policies that they're going
Speaker 1: to offer. I want you to understand that Republicans haven't
Speaker 1: offered a policy to the American people, any type of
Speaker 1: legislative agenda. I don't even know if they did so
Speaker 1: in twenty sixteen. So we're going into what four five
Speaker 1: six years of Republicans being like, well, our base doesn't
Speaker 1: give a fuck about policy. They don't care about what
Speaker 1: is being provided by the federal government. They're only focused
Speaker 1: on what is being taken away. So when we get
Speaker 1: news right of the likes of Jeffrey Clark, who's an
Speaker 1: official in the Department of Justice who wrote a memo
Speaker 1: to undermine the election, he essentially was the white collar
Speaker 1: worker working to undermine the election and have it have
Speaker 1: it thrown out. While their minions were using flagpoles and
Speaker 1: hockey sticks to beat down the walls of the Capitol Building. Now,
Speaker 1: Geoffrey Clark, according to our friend Glenn Kushner, who we
Speaker 1: will hear from in a little bit, is on the
Speaker 1: verge of pleading the fifth as to not incriminate himself.
Speaker 1: But we've all seen the letters that he put out
Speaker 1: in battleground states because Donald Trump said, we just need
Speaker 1: to have, you know, just some suspicion or some doubt
Speaker 1: that there is fought in the election, even though we
Speaker 1: know that there is none, and then my Republican friends
Speaker 1: in Congress will handle the rest. Folks. We have all
Speaker 1: of the information very clearly laid out in front of us,
Speaker 1: But we have a toothless and spineless Department of Justice
Speaker 1: and an administration that wants to believe that they're operating
Speaker 1: in the twentieth century instead of recognizing that they are
Speaker 1: no longer working with the Republicans of yesteryear that they
Speaker 1: can debate with ideologically and then go and have drinks
Speaker 1: with after. These are people that are sharing images of
Speaker 1: killing another member of Congress. These are people that are
Speaker 1: literally stalking their colleagues around the Capitol as a way
Speaker 1: to intimidate and terrorize them. These are people that are
Speaker 1: showing up with guns on their hips. And now you
Speaker 1: have a governor who will probably be one if Trump
Speaker 1: doesn't decide to run in twenty twenty four, will probably
Speaker 1: be one of the Republican potential candidates for president, saying
Speaker 1: that he wants to create his own fucking army. But
Speaker 1: we're gonna sit around and debate about the fucking filibuster.
Speaker 1: That's what we're doing. That only now after we recognize
Speaker 1: that there are but a couple of months until June
Speaker 1: when the decision will come down from the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: that Roe v. Wade is done. Now Democrats want to
Speaker 1: hear and hum about possibly changing the courts. But instead
Speaker 1: of taking action in the way that Republicans continue to
Speaker 1: take action, they're just going to have a conversation about it.
Speaker 1: I am so fucking sick to death of everything that
Speaker 1: I am seeing take place. I mean, my god, the
Speaker 1: amount of evidence that shows that Donald Trump and every
Speaker 1: single one of his fucking associates is guilty of treason right,
Speaker 1: among many other things, Glenn will talk to us about
Speaker 1: the fact that, frankly, Donald Trump should have been arrested
Speaker 1: on January twenty first, right at five pm when Joe
Speaker 1: Biden became President of the United States, and we already
Speaker 1: had the list of ten obstruction offenses that were laid
Speaker 1: out to us in the Mulla Report that could have
Speaker 1: been just taken to the DJ and said go go
Speaker 1: to town, go do your fucking job. But no, they
Speaker 1: want to preserve an institution, or as Susan Rice told us,
Speaker 1: they just want to turn the page. You want to
Speaker 1: turn the page, read the fucking book. These people are
Speaker 1: going to town on our civil liberties. They are going
Speaker 1: to town on terrorism. They are doubling down on violent
Speaker 1: and nothing is coming out in condemnation from the Republican Party.
Speaker 1: And all the fucking Democrats are doing is sitting around
Speaker 1: wringing their hands. Are wanting to sell me literally a
Speaker 1: fucking bridge. These motherfuckers are stacking up weapons right, they
Speaker 1: got itchy trigger fingers. They are celebrating murderers. This is
Speaker 1: only going in one direction, folks. So I don't know
Speaker 1: why we continue to pretend that we have an actual
Speaker 1: functioning democracy. It's not backsliding. It has blown the fuck up.
Speaker 1: This is what an implosion looks like. Now we can
Speaker 1: sit around and say, never in my life did I
Speaker 1: think that I would get here. But the fact is
Speaker 1: we are fucking here. We have a few months before
Speaker 1: the United States is in fact Gilead. Right there will
Speaker 1: be about ten or fifteen states maybe that women are
Speaker 1: going to be able to get an abortion in, and
Speaker 1: everywhere else is going to be out ruled in. One
Speaker 1: of the things that I'm saying is that they're not
Speaker 1: stopping at abortion. They are coming for contraception. They are
Speaker 1: going for the board of versus education. They are coming
Speaker 1: for marriage equality. At a time when we should be
Speaker 1: innovating and creating and expanding liberties to people, they are
Speaker 1: taking us back. As my friend and co host of Democracy,
Speaker 1: issuewajahat Ali had said this week, they are taking it
Speaker 1: back to nineteen fifty three. And we are just going
Speaker 1: to continue to stand around and wait for this political
Speaker 1: party that is in power in the House, in the Senate,
Speaker 1: in the White House to do what exactly because I
Speaker 1: am telling you, folks, we are just but a few
Speaker 1: more months away from taking to the streets. We are
Speaker 1: just but a few more months away for some major
Speaker 1: shit popping off in this country, and not in the
Speaker 1: way that Donald Trump wanted to get people hyped up
Speaker 1: on January six. I'm telling you, we are moments away
Speaker 1: from a powder keg fucking exploding over our heads, and
Speaker 1: everybody who has the ability to do something about it
Speaker 1: is pretending like they have no power. And I'm saying
Speaker 1: to myself, if this is what it looks like for
Speaker 1: Democrats to be in power, then my god, do they
Speaker 1: not deserve it? Because I'm at a point, and I've
Speaker 1: said this before and I'm not mincing words, where I
Speaker 1: am at a point where I believe that this entire
Speaker 1: ship just needs to be burned down so that you
Speaker 1: can create fertile ground and build up something better. We
Speaker 1: are headed into the darkest days of this nation, the
Speaker 1: most violent days of this nation, and I want all
Speaker 1: of us to be vigilant because I want you to
Speaker 1: be safe. I don't want folks caught off guard pretending
Speaker 1: that they didn't know that this could possibly happen, because
Speaker 1: I'm telling you right now, you know the other day,
Speaker 1: and I encourage you to head over to my Instagram
Speaker 1: page right at D two cents d e T two
Speaker 1: c e nts the same as on Twitter and in
Speaker 1: one of the video series that I have done. One
Speaker 1: of them is called what the fuck Happened? And I
Speaker 1: realized the other day that I did a twenty eight
Speaker 1: minute recording on January fifth, the night of January fifth,
Speaker 1: before those motherfuckers stormed the Capitol, and I was outraged.
Speaker 1: I was outraged at the fact that nobody was doing anything.
Speaker 1: That Donald Trump had tweeted that there was going to
Speaker 1: be action that was going to happen, things were going
Speaker 1: to be wild, and they did nothing. And when I
Speaker 1: sat there and I rewatched that video, I'm like, my god.
Speaker 1: The FBI, I had been warned, the CIA had been warned,
Speaker 1: the National Guards should have been fucking called in, but no.
Speaker 1: We saw that days after with them sleeping in the
Speaker 1: Capitol building, remember that on shift? But did you see it?
Speaker 1: They had already missed the ship that had actually gone down. Folks,
Speaker 1: we are in danger. We are in grave, grave danger.
Speaker 1: And I want you all to prepare for twenty twenty
Speaker 1: two because if you think that what we have seen
Speaker 1: was bad, then you ain't seen nothing yet. And this
Speaker 1: kind of tepid reaction from the Insurrection Committee, from the administration,
Speaker 1: from the Department of Justice is going to be the
Speaker 1: nail in Democracy's coffin. Coming up next is my conversation
Speaker 1: with our friend MSNBC legal analyst and host of Justice Matters,
Speaker 1: Glenn Kirshner. Folks, I am always so thrilled when I
Speaker 1: have the opportunity to sit down with our friend Glenn Kirschner,
Speaker 1: MSNBC Legal analysts and the host of Justice Matters. Glenn,
Speaker 1: you know, there has been so much insurrection news, and
Speaker 1: unfortunately the Insurrection Commission and the news that is coming
Speaker 1: out is getting lost with a lot of other news
Speaker 1: that we have been following in a lot of other cases.
Speaker 1: So I want, um, you know, the opportunity for you
Speaker 1: to bring us up to speed on some very significant
Speaker 1: moves that the Commission has made and suggestions that have
Speaker 1: also been made that we hear. Mark Meadows is finally,
Speaker 1: you know, deciding that he wants to cooperate. I want
Speaker 1: to know if that has anything to do with the
Speaker 1: criminal contempt charges being brought against Steve Bannon and other
Speaker 1: other things that we are learning about what happened on
Speaker 1: that faithful day. So tell us, you know, what is
Speaker 1: what is the latest that we need to be paying
Speaker 1: attention to. So I think the most important and consequential development, Danielle,
Speaker 1: is that one of Donald Trump's high Department of Justice officials,
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Clark, is on the eve of invoking his Fifth
Speaker 1: Amendment right against self incrimination for corruptly trying to overturn
Speaker 1: the elections results. That is earth shaking. And here's why.
Speaker 1: You now have one of Donald Trump's men inside the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice announcing to the world, if I were
Speaker 1: to testify truthfully before the House Select Committee, I would
Speaker 1: be incriminating myself. I would be telling everyone that I
Speaker 1: committed crimes against the United States to try to undermine
Speaker 1: the elections results. And we all know he did it
Speaker 1: with and for Donald Trump. So in a very real
Speaker 1: and provable sense, he's a co conspirator in a conspiracy
Speaker 1: with the Donald Trump to commit offenses against the United States,
Speaker 1: which is a precise criminal charge eighteen United States Code,
Speaker 1: three seventy one. The reason this is so earth shattering
Speaker 1: is it's the first kind of concrete example showing that
Speaker 1: Donald Trump had people inside the Department of Justice committing
Speaker 1: federal crimes to try to unlawfully keep him in power.
Speaker 1: The other reason it's really important is because now there
Speaker 1: is a conflict that is squarely presented to the Department
Speaker 1: of Justice. First of all, they have to criminally investigate
Speaker 1: one of their own who is on the eve of
Speaker 1: pleading the Fifth To not for the Department of Justice
Speaker 1: to say, you know what, We're not going to investigate
Speaker 1: one of our own high officials would be cronyism at best,
Speaker 1: and it would be deeply sort of corrupt abusive conduct
Speaker 1: at worst. They have to investigate this, right. The question
Speaker 1: then becomes, how do they investigate it? What's the vehicle?
Speaker 1: Because you know, we don't like to have organizations investigate themselves.
Speaker 1: We see how well that goes with the police departments
Speaker 1: really well, and it would be like, you know, Bill
Speaker 1: Barr looking at his own misconduct and clearing himself of
Speaker 1: any wrongdoing. Right, So, I think this moves us pretty
Speaker 1: significantly in the direction of the need for a special counsel.
Speaker 1: Let's hope we get there. But I'm telling you this
Speaker 1: is one of the biggest and most ominous developments for
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, that one of his own officials will be
Speaker 1: invoking the Fifth So you know, over the course of
Speaker 1: the Trump administration, we knew that he was working whether
Speaker 1: it was with Sessions over with Barr, to weaponize the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice. But what makes Jeffrey clarks actions so
Speaker 1: egregious in compare? Like, I am still wondering why haven't
Speaker 1: we seen a charge or subpoena for Bill Barr? Right? Like,
Speaker 1: so tell us why what was discovered with Jeffrey Clark
Speaker 1: and what he has been doing, what he did right
Speaker 1: or what he potentially suggested in the letter that he
Speaker 1: wrote that is different than where we have seen Bill
Speaker 1: Barr's criminality. Well, first of all, I hope Bill Barr
Speaker 1: is smarter than the Jeffrey Clarks of the world, and
Speaker 1: certainly than the Steve Bannons and Roger Stones of the world.
Speaker 1: And I hope Bill Barr is quietly already talking with
Speaker 1: the folks who are investigating all of this. We don't know,
Speaker 1: but that maybe one reason we haven't seen subpoenas for
Speaker 1: Bill Barr. But setting that aside, what did Jeffrey Clark do?
Speaker 1: What Jeffrey Clark did was in a meeting with Donald
Speaker 1: Trump and others, Donald Trump said in sub since look,
Speaker 1: I know there's no fraud, just say there was fraud
Speaker 1: and leave the rest to me and my allies in Congress.
Speaker 1: That was an invitation to join the criminal conspiracy to
Speaker 1: overturn the elections results, and Jeffrey Clark took him up
Speaker 1: on it. He accepted Donald Trump's invitation and he joined
Speaker 1: the criminal conspiracy. We know that because he went back
Speaker 1: to the Department of Justice, put his nose to the grindstone,
Speaker 1: and started drafting letters to election officials in the battleground states,
Speaker 1: giving them a blueprint to corruptly overturn the elections results.
Speaker 1: There's a technical term for what Jeffrey Clark did after
Speaker 1: he was invited to join the conspiracy and joined the conspiracy.
Speaker 1: It's called an overt act. In order to prove a conspiracy,
Speaker 1: you need to prove two or more people agreed to
Speaker 1: commit a crime, but you also need the added element
Speaker 1: that one of the co conspirators did something that move
Speaker 1: the conspiracy in the direction of committing that substance of crime,
Speaker 1: that crime they agreed to commit. That's called an overt act,
Speaker 1: and to prove a criminal conspiracy you need at least
Speaker 1: one overt act. Jeffrey Clark committed that overt act very helpfully.
Speaker 1: Because Jeffrey Clark's culpability, his criminal culpability couldn't be more clear,
Speaker 1: which is why he's finally doing the smart wise and
Speaker 1: I'm going to say legal thing, which is to invoke
Speaker 1: his Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination, because he assuredly
Speaker 1: has a legitimate Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination. So
Speaker 1: let me ask this because the letter, the letters that
Speaker 1: he put out are in fact public, right, we've seen them.
Speaker 1: So it isn't as if we don't have evidence, right
Speaker 1: that Jeffrey Clark is saying, oh, I didn't write those
Speaker 1: or it was a draft, and so is there let's
Speaker 1: play which I hate to do, Devil's advocate if you
Speaker 1: are the defense attorney for a Jeffrey Clark and he's saying,
Speaker 1: I'm acting in my official capacity. Because again, moving on
Speaker 1: the big lie, we believed that there was fraud and
Speaker 1: there was all of these things that they have said,
Speaker 1: right in order to create over three hundred voter suppression
Speaker 1: laws around the country in Red States, is there any
Speaker 1: justice like not bs justification, but is there a real
Speaker 1: justification that a defense attorney could make on Clark's behalf. No,
Speaker 1: Because Bill Barr, who was the top dog at the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice for better or worse, based on all
Speaker 1: of the information he had available to him, concluded and
Speaker 1: told Donald Trump there was no systemic fraud that would
Speaker 1: undermine the elections results. You can't just be an underling
Speaker 1: at DOJ like Jeffrey Clark and say I don't care.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna say there was, because that's precisely what Donald
Speaker 1: Trump told him to do. Is there an argument that
Speaker 1: can be made in court that maybe they were all
Speaker 1: thinking they were acting legitimately? You can always make an
Speaker 1: argument in court. Give me three hours in front of
Speaker 1: a DC jury and I will shoot that arguments of
Speaker 1: all twelve jurors. You know, I get so sick and tired, Danielle,
Speaker 1: of the legal hand ringing and the navel gazing and
Speaker 1: the second Oh my goodness, we don't want to get
Speaker 1: put it in front of twelve people in a jury box,
Speaker 1: for gosh sakes. Already bring the charge. Try it to
Speaker 1: a jury, win loser draw. You've done the right thing
Speaker 1: by the American people and by our democracy. It's not
Speaker 1: that hard unless you're petrified of losing. And if we
Speaker 1: have DJ officials who are petrified of losing, step aside
Speaker 1: and let somebody who's willing to fight the fight for
Speaker 1: the American people take over. What happens here if the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice again decides that they're going to either
Speaker 1: slow walk this or not again, what we have said
Speaker 1: and what we've been talking about for months, you and
Speaker 1: I is the toothlessness. Right, there's no teeth at this
Speaker 1: Department of Justice. We have given them months to show us,
Speaker 1: right that they are not just about preserving an institution,
Speaker 1: but they are actually about preserving right, the trust and
Speaker 1: dignity and faith in this Department of Justice. That it
Speaker 1: isn't just a slogan to say that no one is
Speaker 1: above the law if you're not going to prosecute people
Speaker 1: who are acting against the interests of the public, Because
Speaker 1: isn't this also treason? Am I? Like? Am I just
Speaker 1: making this up? But isn't this also I mean, Jeffrey
Speaker 1: Clark might as well have had a pole like those
Speaker 1: people on the ground at the Capitol Building forcing their
Speaker 1: way into the Capitol. What's the difference between the actions
Speaker 1: that he was taking behind closed doors and the actions
Speaker 1: that were taken physically on one six Yeah, figuratively speaking,
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Clark was handing out the weapons to be used
Speaker 1: to try to kill our democracy. The poles, the bear
Speaker 1: spray that's what he was doing in a very real
Speaker 1: but figurative sense. He was giving everybody the weapons they
Speaker 1: needed to try to corruptly, criminally overturn the elections results. So,
Speaker 1: but you know, if you look back to Watergate and
Speaker 1: the way that played out, you know, it started with
Speaker 1: lots of congressional investigations and ultimately, after some time it
Speaker 1: morphed into criminal indictments and prosecutions. So I think if
Speaker 1: we pull back to thirty thousand feet, our frustration is
Speaker 1: that the Department of Justice is not moving out quickly
Speaker 1: enough to protect and preserve public safety and the health
Speaker 1: and viability of our democracy. And we can criticize them
Speaker 1: all day long, and I will continue to do so,
Speaker 1: but I also think they're largely following the Watergate blueprint,
Speaker 1: where we've had two hundred more than two hundred and
Speaker 1: fifty interviews, all behind closed doors, of people who are
Speaker 1: providing the House Select Committee with information about the insurrection,
Speaker 1: including about Donald Trump's conduct. We just learned last night
Speaker 1: from Liz Cheney that they are curating all of that
Speaker 1: information that they're getting behind closed doors, and they are
Speaker 1: about to spend weeks and weeks in early twenty twenty two,
Speaker 1: showing it to all of us, and then I'm not
Speaker 1: a betting man. My betting limit as a dollar, but
Speaker 1: I would bet a buck. You're going to see criminal
Speaker 1: indictments start to come after that, just like we saw
Speaker 1: in Watergate. The difference between this and Watergate. Democracy is
Speaker 1: hanging by a thread and there's a very real threat
Speaker 1: to public safety because Richard Nixon didn't continue to go
Speaker 1: out and try to kill our democracy, right, Donald Trump
Speaker 1: continues to try to kill our democracy, and he continues
Speaker 1: to fool the gullible. Everything the Republicans say is an
Speaker 1: effort to keep the gullible in the Republican fold, and
Speaker 1: they're pretty successful because the gullible are easily fooled. So
Speaker 1: that's the difference between the two. But again, if you
Speaker 1: pull back, I think we are headed in that direction,
Speaker 1: albeit too slowly. So let's let's switch gears and talk
Speaker 1: about Mark Meadows for a minute. Who you know. This
Speaker 1: week it came out that he was going to cooperate, right,
Speaker 1: and by virtue of everybody writing a book on their
Speaker 1: way out because everyone needs to capitalize on the terror
Speaker 1: that they caused this country. Meadows alerts us to the
Speaker 1: fact that Donald Trump was very aware that he had
Speaker 1: COVID when he was headed into the first presidential debate
Speaker 1: with Joe Biden, and because of that, he had an
Speaker 1: event in the Rose Garden. This was the Amy Cony
Speaker 1: Barrett event. He did the presidential debate, flew on Air
Speaker 1: Force One, went back into the press corps again. You know,
Speaker 1: I we talked about Bulsonado in Brazil, right, and the
Speaker 1: Senate there in Brazil looking into actual charges because of
Speaker 1: gross negligence in how he handled and it's continuing to
Speaker 1: handle the crisis in Brazil. Given this information once again
Speaker 1: that we get in black and white, tell me about
Speaker 1: why is there a case against Donald Trump for willful negligence? Yes,
Speaker 1: there's a case for criminal liability for avoidable COVID deaths.
Speaker 1: There is a case for civil liability. He was breathing
Speaker 1: all over gold Star Mothers among others, not to mention
Speaker 1: Joe Biden at the debate, exposing them to COVID. Anybody
Speaker 1: who came into close contact with him and contracted COVID
Speaker 1: has a civil suit to bring. Doesn't guarantee they will
Speaker 1: win that civil suit. But then, Yelle, you can't win
Speaker 1: the case you don't bring in court, and we need
Speaker 1: to bring prosecutions. We need to be you know, less concerned.
Speaker 1: I always told my prosecutors it's more important to try
Speaker 1: cases than to win cases, because when you're trying cases,
Speaker 1: you're doing your damnedest to vindicate the rights of victims.
Speaker 1: You're doing your damnedest to protect society. If you lose,
Speaker 1: if twelve jurors can't unanimously agree beyond a reasonable doubt
Speaker 1: of the defendant's guilt, that there's no shame in that.
Speaker 1: That's not like a failure that you should be embarrassed by.
Speaker 1: You should be embarrassed if your fear of losing keeps
Speaker 1: you out of the courtroom altogether. So there should be
Speaker 1: criminal cases brought against Donald Trump for avoidable COVID deaths.
Speaker 1: There could be civil cases brought by the people he
Speaker 1: likely infected and put it in front of twelve jurors,
Speaker 1: rather than trying to make all these decisions and talk
Speaker 1: yourself into well, you know what, we might not be
Speaker 1: successful at the end of the day. So let's not
Speaker 1: bring the case. Because it feels like that's where we
Speaker 1: are on a lot of fronts. Because you know, the
Speaker 1: only feeling that I have there right with regard to
Speaker 1: bringing cases, particularly around covid is, because it harkens back
Speaker 1: to when folks started to bring bring charges against people
Speaker 1: for deliberately and purposefully infecting others with HIV, knowing that
Speaker 1: they were HIV positive, and then weaponizing the virus. Right,
Speaker 1: And you know I'm wondering here, Glenn, is that if
Speaker 1: that were to happen, if we see this case or
Speaker 1: cases or a class action, right, does that then open
Speaker 1: up the floodgates for regular Americans who are refusing to
Speaker 1: get vaccinated and they may infect someone. And how would
Speaker 1: how would we? Is it the fear of initially prosecuting,
Speaker 1: because this would just be opening up the floodgates just
Speaker 1: a waterfall of effects of everyone suing anybody because this
Speaker 1: virus is so communicable. A couple of points. I was
Speaker 1: never a fan of the opening the floodgates or slippery
Speaker 1: slope argument. If what we're discussing is whether a viable
Speaker 1: suit a triable case should be brought, because you have
Speaker 1: to look at each case on its own merits and
Speaker 1: decide if somebody has been harmed and if somebody should
Speaker 1: be held responsible for inflicting that harm either under the
Speaker 1: criminal laws of our jurisdictions or under the civil procedures.
Speaker 1: If it's a civil case, let the slippery slope and
Speaker 1: the floodgates arguments work themselves out, because that I don't
Speaker 1: think that's a good reason to decline to bring a
Speaker 1: meritorious case. And if it does inspire more cases, maybe
Speaker 1: more cases should be brought and resolved by juries. You know,
Speaker 1: so you have to take the first step on the
Speaker 1: road rather than finding a hundred reasons not to take
Speaker 1: the first step on the road to accountability. And then,
Speaker 1: you know, one of the questions that I have for you,
Speaker 1: because I want to pivot from this particular potential of
Speaker 1: cases and look at again what is happening on Capitol
Speaker 1: Hill with the Republican members of the House, whether verbally
Speaker 1: or through visual aid in the case of Paul Gasser,
Speaker 1: threatening and terrorizing their Democratic colleagues. Now we're sitting around
Speaker 1: right waiting for Republicans to come out and condemn the
Speaker 1: actions of their caucus and their you know, desire to
Speaker 1: I don't know, violently like attack their their colleagues, right
Speaker 1: like we're no longer in a civilized place at that
Speaker 1: at this moment when you're seeing the Lauren Boberts and
Speaker 1: the ghosts of the world. Do those that are the
Speaker 1: victims of their terror, like a Representative han Omar, like
Speaker 1: Representative Alexandro Cassio Cortez for lack of protection that seems
Speaker 1: to be coming from Democrats, Do they have the case
Speaker 1: whether it is you know, to say to the police
Speaker 1: they need to stay two hundred feet away from me,
Speaker 1: or you know, I feel terrorized and they are threatening
Speaker 1: my life and safety and I have a case there. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think they have. They should assess whether they have
Speaker 1: a viable case to be brought against the gossars of
Speaker 1: the world for threatening their lives. It feels to me
Speaker 1: like they do. And mind you, for thirty years, I
Speaker 1: was a prosecutor, a criminal litigator, not a civil litigator,
Speaker 1: so I'm not an expert in that area of our practice.
Speaker 1: But look, Eric Swalwell has brought suit for what happened
Speaker 1: to him as a result of Donald Trump launching the insurrection,
Speaker 1: the attack on the Capitol. Representative Thompson has brought suit.
Speaker 1: So these suits can and should be brought because Danielle,
Speaker 1: nothing can be resolved by us just talking about it.
Speaker 1: It's like, well, what would happen if Gosar was charged
Speaker 1: or if civil suit was brought it nothing can be
Speaker 1: resolved by just talking and ruminating. It can be resolved
Speaker 1: in a court of law. And let's face it, for
Speaker 1: all its flaws, the criminal justice system and our judiciary generally,
Speaker 1: is one of the reasons we are still a democracy
Speaker 1: rejecting sixty five election challenges. Right the Judge Walton's and
Speaker 1: the Judge Chutkins, and the Judge Mata's and the Judge
Speaker 1: Sullivan's being the heroes of this period in our national
Speaker 1: history by doing everything they can to hold our corrupt
Speaker 1: government officials accountable. So let's move some of these matters
Speaker 1: into the courts. Let representatives who are being victimized and
Speaker 1: attacked by the Gosars of the world bring suit. Let's
Speaker 1: have judges decide whether it's a suit that's appropriately brought
Speaker 1: it probably will be, and then let's have twelve people
Speaker 1: in the box decide whether Gosar had a right to
Speaker 1: do this against AOC or not. I'll take that case.
Speaker 1: I'll learn all I need to know about the civil law,
Speaker 1: and I'll bring that case, and I predict we would
Speaker 1: win that case. You know, it's just it's so disturbing
Speaker 1: to me, Glenn, because I feel like we're coming up
Speaker 1: against a time where you and I are going to
Speaker 1: have one of these conversations and something incredibly physically violent
Speaker 1: again will have happened, and we are going to be
Speaker 1: waiting or I mean, we're still waiting on real serious
Speaker 1: charges for the fact that people lost their life on
Speaker 1: one six. And I keep saying, you know, this escalation
Speaker 1: in verbal attacks, in visual attacks, it is just signaling
Speaker 1: right to the base that they're not done right. When
Speaker 1: do we get to use our guns? Was overheard at
Speaker 1: like a rally recently, and I'm just you know, my
Speaker 1: last question is, you know, as we're moving, you know,
Speaker 1: very quickly to the end of the year, what are
Speaker 1: you thinking in terms of whether or not we're going
Speaker 1: to see the kind of accountability as the calendar year
Speaker 1: closes at the that we I mean January six, we're
Speaker 1: coming up on, you know, an anniversary, and we're still waiting. Yeah.
Speaker 1: You know, this highlights what I have always railed against,
Speaker 1: which is the timidity of federal prosecutors. I was one,
Speaker 1: I know thousands of them, and you know, you can't
Speaker 1: paint with a broad brush and say all federal prosecutors
Speaker 1: take their darned time when it comes to investigating cases.
Speaker 1: But the reality is, Danielle, the state and local prosecutors
Speaker 1: make up ninety eight percent of the prosecutors in our nation.
Speaker 1: And what they do is they bring cases and bring
Speaker 1: cases and bring cases because a crime is committed and
Speaker 1: arrest is made and we're in court. That's what I
Speaker 1: did also in DC, because we handled all the local
Speaker 1: prosecutions as well as the federal prosecutions. Federal prosecutors don't
Speaker 1: operate like that. They think deep thoughts, they spend months
Speaker 1: or years in the grand jury, and then they deign
Speaker 1: whether the evidence is so bulletproof that they can't lose
Speaker 1: in trial, and then they indict, or more frequently, what
Speaker 1: they do is they negotiate a pre indictment plea offer
Speaker 1: so they never have to try the case. Please don't misunderstand.
Speaker 1: Not all prosecutors, federal prosecutors operate that way, but that
Speaker 1: is the culture and the practice of federal prosecutors. They
Speaker 1: don't have to arrest, indict, and get into court instantly.
Speaker 1: They have all the time in the world to investigate.
Speaker 1: And we are now seeing the downside of that culture
Speaker 1: and that practice. Because this is something that should have
Speaker 1: been done at light speed. Donald Trump and his corrupt
Speaker 1: associates should have been arrested. Donald Trump should have been
Speaker 1: charged on January twenty first for the ten felony obstruction
Speaker 1: of justice counts that were meticulously documented in detail by
Speaker 1: Bob Muller in Volume two of the Trump Russia Report,
Speaker 1: about which Bob Mueller testified he can be charged when
Speaker 1: he leaves office. But unfortunately that's not the way the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice operates. And now we see the downside
Speaker 1: to how the Department of Justice operates. I mean, I
Speaker 1: want to say that I am very interested to see
Speaker 1: what the commission is going to do. I'm very interested
Speaker 1: to seeing what the Department of Justice will do with
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Clark, what will come of Mark Meadows cooperation, and
Speaker 1: what we will learn after we the public get to
Speaker 1: be privy to the two hundred and fifty interviews that
Speaker 1: have been done, which I believe should have been done
Speaker 1: in public and not behind closed doors, because the insurrection
Speaker 1: did not happen behind closed doors. It happened in public,
Speaker 1: and the public should be a part of our investigation
Speaker 1: into what is happening. So Glenn, as always We appreciate you,
Speaker 1: and we hope that we will continue this conversation and
Speaker 1: bring people some good news in the coming weeks. I'll
Speaker 1: see you next week, Danielle. That is it for me today.
Speaker 1: Dear friends on woke app as always, Power to the
Speaker 1: people and to all the people. Power, get woke and
Speaker 1: stay woke as fuck.