Speaker 1: Good morning, peeps, and welcome to bokay f Daily with
Speaker 1: me your girl, Danielle Moody recording from the bunker. Folks,
Speaker 1: it is amazing that we are still reeling, still reeling
Speaker 1: from the first bombshell hearing for the one six House Commission.
Speaker 1: I have to tell you that this country is so
Speaker 1: fucking wild. Like I forgive me because I'm stalling in
Speaker 1: my brain right now, just trying to think about what
Speaker 1: part I want to start with first. But here's what
Speaker 1: I will say. I'll start off with this Fox News
Speaker 1: not playing the insurrection and not only not playing it
Speaker 1: with sound, but doing their whole you know, livetime maneuvering
Speaker 1: and editing to try and shelter their audiences from reality, right,
Speaker 1: and then having the audacity of that piece of shit
Speaker 1: Tucker Carlson going on and saying, Oh, this is just
Speaker 1: all propaganda. You're the only network. And I know that
Speaker 1: you guys think that it's like a badge of honor
Speaker 1: to be the only network that isn't covering reality because
Speaker 1: you're so terrified right of what it is that your
Speaker 1: viewers are going to think that you have to think
Speaker 1: for them, that you have to shield them because they
Speaker 1: are a bunch of radicalized children, and God knows what
Speaker 1: they will do or what they will say when you
Speaker 1: start to create a monster, and then eventually that monster
Speaker 1: will turn on you. It is only a matter of time.
Speaker 1: But now I just want to go to the contents
Speaker 1: of what it is that we saw. First of all,
Speaker 1: to see these video images at these at these different endles,
Speaker 1: to see the brutality, to see the force with which
Speaker 1: this white domestic terrorist mob took and descended upon our
Speaker 1: capital building, and watching the faces of these capital police
Speaker 1: officers is particularly the one that gave her testimony. The
Speaker 1: Republican Party is supposed to be the party that believes
Speaker 1: in blue lives, that believes in the military, But I
Speaker 1: realize that everything about them is as fraudulent as Fox News.
Speaker 1: Everything is just about like they think that patriotism is
Speaker 1: going to Old Navy the day before the fourth of
Speaker 1: July and getting themselves donned in had to tow American
Speaker 1: flag gear. That's to the extent of their understanding of
Speaker 1: patriotism and the Republican Party. They don't understand at all
Speaker 1: the Constitution, the context of it democracy, and what democracy
Speaker 1: is actually supposed to look like, which is that Hey,
Speaker 1: you vote, your candidate doesn't win, you say, oh that sucks.
Speaker 1: You go back, you figure out what it is that
Speaker 1: you need to do to engage the American public. You
Speaker 1: do that, and then you get another bite at the apple.
Speaker 1: You don't do what Donald Trump did, which would say, nah,
Speaker 1: fuck it, I'm just not going to leave, spread an
Speaker 1: entire lie, put up over sixty court cases that get
Speaker 1: laughed out of court, and then when that doesn't work,
Speaker 1: create your own militia and then have them descend upon
Speaker 1: the Capitol Building in search of your vice president, who
Speaker 1: you believe is treasonist because he refuses to go along
Speaker 1: with the big lie, as does your own fucking daughter,
Speaker 1: the Attorney General, and the entire circle of people around
Speaker 1: you who said you lost right. I just don't understand
Speaker 1: like the character of these people, and they just they
Speaker 1: don't have any And I guess that's what gets me
Speaker 1: to this place is that we continue to refer to
Speaker 1: Republicans as if they are a legitimate political party, as
Speaker 1: if all that they have is a difference in ideology.
Speaker 1: This is not about a difference in ideology between two groups.
Speaker 1: This is about one that refuses to deal with reality
Speaker 1: and instead creates their own is terrified of people of color,
Speaker 1: and the fear extends so greatly to the shifting demographic
Speaker 1: that you foresee that all you need to do is
Speaker 1: descend upon these communities with abject violence, have the courts
Speaker 1: in your pocket, and then all is going to go. Well.
Speaker 1: I'm looking around this place and I'm saying, America is
Speaker 1: a fucking tinderbox, and we are about one step away
Speaker 1: from just a full out blown civil war. And you know,
Speaker 1: I don't think that these people, if in fact, they
Speaker 1: will ever be reflected, reflection, ever reflect excuse me over
Speaker 1: what it is that they have sided with, if any
Speaker 1: of them will ever have an epiphany, Like I didn't
Speaker 1: know that you could get brainwashed into a cult. And
Speaker 1: I don't even want to say that they're brainwashed, because Frank,
Speaker 1: that doesn't allow them to hold responsibility for the decisions
Speaker 1: that they're making. You know, I did TV over the weekend,
Speaker 1: and you know, Katie Fang on MSNBC, she said, you know,
Speaker 1: do you think that Liz Cheney, who voted with Donald
Speaker 1: Trump ninety percent of the time, is going to be
Speaker 1: remembered in history as this great person of courage? And
Speaker 1: I said, here's The thing that pisces me off is
Speaker 1: that Liz Cheney actually agrees with every single abysmal, racist, misogynistic,
Speaker 1: you know, anti American policy that Donald Trump put forth.
Speaker 1: The only thing that she didn't agree with was that
Speaker 1: our election was stolen, and for that she was turned
Speaker 1: into an incredible villain. This bitch is a Cheney, do
Speaker 1: you know what I'm saying. So it's like, how is
Speaker 1: history going to remember her the way that we remember
Speaker 1: everyone in history, regardless of how terrible they were, how
Speaker 1: horrible their parents were, all of their connections to the
Speaker 1: demise of our democracy into limiting the voice of the people.
Speaker 1: She'll be remembered as a hero if, in fact, by
Speaker 1: then we have history books that tell the truth at all. So,
Speaker 1: you know, I want to applaud on one hand, you know,
Speaker 1: Liz Cheney for what grasping reality, But at the same time,
Speaker 1: I'm like, Liz Chaney was terrible for America, right, Like,
Speaker 1: she has not done good for this country outside of
Speaker 1: this one thing. But our attention spans are short and
Speaker 1: our memories even shorter, which is why you know, I
Speaker 1: hope that the one six House Commission goes out with
Speaker 1: the same energy that they came in with meaning that
Speaker 1: I hope that the closing it's in primetime at seven pm.
Speaker 1: You know, today's edition is going to be at ten
Speaker 1: in the morning where people work. So I'm just like, again,
Speaker 1: do this thing right, Have it, you know, not every night,
Speaker 1: but have it weekly seven pm for the next you know,
Speaker 1: six weeks or however many weeks that it's supposed to be.
Speaker 1: But do it in primetime, and do it when people
Speaker 1: are sitting down with their families at home and everyone
Speaker 1: can gather around and then pummel it all of the
Speaker 1: days in between on social media, on radio, on every
Speaker 1: single television show, on every single network. It's the most
Speaker 1: important thing that people should be watching right now, right.
Speaker 1: And so where it leads us, folks, I still don't know.
Speaker 1: Our friend Glenn Kirshner is coming up next and he's
Speaker 1: going to walk us through everything that we saw why
Speaker 1: it is important in what he believes that the Department
Speaker 1: of Justice will be doing. But I don't know. I
Speaker 1: will say that it was jaw dropping, right, jaw dropping.
Speaker 1: The fact that we know that the oath Keepers and
Speaker 1: the Proud Boys met ahead of time, the fact that
Speaker 1: they weren't even in attendance at the President's speech at
Speaker 1: that time because they were getting ready to lay out
Speaker 1: their plan to take over the Capitol Building. Right, Donald
Speaker 1: Trump absent for a hundred and eighty seven minutes and
Speaker 1: Vice President Pence is acting as president calling on the
Speaker 1: National Guard. What is Donald Trump doing for one hundred
Speaker 1: and eighty seven minutes? Well, I said on Amin Mohadean
Speaker 1: show that Donald Trump wasn't in charge of the White
Speaker 1: House or America for that matter, in that one hundred
Speaker 1: and eighty seven minutes, because he was leading the insurrection
Speaker 1: from inside of the White House. Right, people like, what
Speaker 1: was Donald Trump doing? He was in coordination. I am
Speaker 1: one hundred percent sure with the Oathkeepers and the Proud Boys,
Speaker 1: you know, the group that he told to stand back
Speaker 1: and stand by and who after saying such. What we
Speaker 1: learned from the first hearing is that membership within those
Speaker 1: organizations tripled after Donald Trump called them into arms and
Speaker 1: into action. So you know, when we say, oh, well,
Speaker 1: we have to prove in the court of law this
Speaker 1: that and the other thing, I mean, this country throws
Speaker 1: innocent black and brown people in jail all the fucking
Speaker 1: time for life sentences for shit that they did not do.
Speaker 1: So you are telling me that again once again, for
Speaker 1: a wealthy white man who is powerful, the burden of
Speaker 1: proof is outside of our stratosphere. Donald Trump told these
Speaker 1: people after his entire inner circle told him that he
Speaker 1: lost the election well before January sixth, decided that he
Speaker 1: was going to continue spreading this lie. He knew, he knew,
Speaker 1: and how do you tell him? Because his Attorney general
Speaker 1: told him, his polster told him, his own family members
Speaker 1: told him that he lost. He just refused not to
Speaker 1: believe it right, but to accept it. And those, to me,
Speaker 1: are two different fucking things. Donald Trump didn't choose to
Speaker 1: believe it because he believed an alternative thing. No, he
Speaker 1: refused to accept those results. And I think that that's
Speaker 1: the language that needs to have a shift here. I
Speaker 1: just am tired of living in this alarmed state where
Speaker 1: I'm wondering whether or not everyone is just in cahoots
Speaker 1: and the only people who aren't right are those of
Speaker 1: us that are black and brown, low income, or from
Speaker 1: other marginalized groups. We're the ones that are not in
Speaker 1: on the joke. Because I'm like, is the Department of
Speaker 1: Justice just waiting for this documentary series to be finished?
Speaker 1: And then they're going to rain down with indictments. Because
Speaker 1: I gotta tell you, the twenty million Americans, and that's
Speaker 1: not even the real number. That's just the Nielsen number
Speaker 1: of like one screen in one home. You're not talking
Speaker 1: about the people that were watching on streaming. I guarantee
Speaker 1: you that that number of people that viewed the first
Speaker 1: day of the hearing is much higher. They saw all
Speaker 1: of the evidence, all of these things unfold, and you're
Speaker 1: going to tell me that everyone is just going to
Speaker 1: accept the fact the Department of Justice isn't going to
Speaker 1: do anything with the actual architect. Donald Trump, I think
Speaker 1: that you're setting up more dangerous precedent than investigating and
Speaker 1: indicting a former president. So we will see. Coming up next,
Speaker 1: my conversation with our friend Glenn Kirshner about the first
Speaker 1: first installment of this very long summertime series Blockbuster Hit Insurrection.
Speaker 1: Who Done It? Hey, I'm David. Plots of Slights Political Gabfest.
Speaker 1: As another election season accelerates, it can be tricky to
Speaker 1: sort through all the noise and the news. Each week
Speaker 1: on the Gapfest, John Dickerson, Emily Bathlon and I decipher
Speaker 1: the headlines, break down the races and tell you what
Speaker 1: issues really matter. We do not always agree. We definitely
Speaker 1: do not always agree, but we always deliver thoughtful debate
Speaker 1: and we always have a good time. So subscribe to
Speaker 1: Slate's Political Gapfest, new episodes every Thursday. Indisputable with Doctor
Speaker 1: Rashid Ricci is one of the latest shows on the
Speaker 1: TYT network and also the fastest growing news show in America.
Speaker 1: On his show, Doctor Ricci plays no games regarding policy,
Speaker 1: delivering a heavy dose of fact based truth and penetrating
Speaker 1: analysis on all the top news stories, focusing on racism,
Speaker 1: criminal and social justice, politics, police brutality, Karens, and much more.
Speaker 1: Listeners can also expect interviews with fascinating guests, political leaders, commentators,
Speaker 1: and even fiery debates with conservatives on a wide range
Speaker 1: of policy topics in the Bullpen. It is an indisputable
Speaker 1: fact that you will love this show. Listen to Indisputable
Speaker 1: with Doctor Rashad Ricci on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or whereever
Speaker 1: you get your podcast. If you like what you hear,
Speaker 1: be sure to subscribe so you never miss a new episode. Folks,
Speaker 1: you know that when I have the opportunity to speak
Speaker 1: with our friend, host of Justice Matters and MSNBC legal analyst.
Speaker 1: I am always thrilled. Although we often talk about things
Speaker 1: that are terrible, Glenn, it has finally happened. The first
Speaker 1: public hearing episode one of America's reminder of the insurrection.
Speaker 1: Give us everything about what it is you saw picked
Speaker 1: up and is this just infotainment or is it going
Speaker 1: to turn into something of substance like charges if Daniel.
Speaker 1: Last night was a phenomenal opening statement that the jury
Speaker 1: heard of. The jury, of course, is the people. To
Speaker 1: the extent we the people tuned in, and I think
Speaker 1: a lot of folks did. It was a remarkable opening
Speaker 1: statement setting out the evidence that the J six Committee
Speaker 1: has amassed, showing that Donald Trump was at the center
Speaker 1: of this conspiracy. That's what Representative Thompson said, That's what
Speaker 1: Representative Cheney said. They said it was a sprawling, multiple
Speaker 1: step conspiracy to deny the voters of America. And what
Speaker 1: I was most surprised by was that the evidence we
Speaker 1: saw last night, through the video clips of witnesses, they
Speaker 1: were almost exclusively Republicans. They're going to prove this case
Speaker 1: in large part with the voices and the testimony and
Speaker 1: the evidence provided by Republicans. That help helps draw the
Speaker 1: sting out of the criticism that will come that this
Speaker 1: is just partisan politics. You know who the first witness
Speaker 1: we saw a clip of what Bill Barr. I didn't
Speaker 1: expect that. Bill Barr. They put him up there, and
Speaker 1: I will go with the unredacted version, even though I
Speaker 1: don't ordinarily cuss on TV or on podcast. He said,
Speaker 1: I told the President his claims of election fraud were bullshit,
Speaker 1: and I told him over and over again. The reason
Speaker 1: it was so important that they start with that was one,
Speaker 1: that's incriminating evidence from his own attorney general. And two,
Speaker 1: it provides direct evidence of the only minimally open question
Speaker 1: we have. It's really alcohol. It a foe open question.
Speaker 1: Did Donald Trump do all this with corrupt intent, with
Speaker 1: a guilty state of mind, with criminal men's raeth, Yes
Speaker 1: he did. And Bill Barr, right at the beginning of
Speaker 1: the hearings told you he did. And then they continued
Speaker 1: to play clips but incriminating clips by Jason Miller and
Speaker 1: Alex Cannon who knews who Alex Cannon was a Republican
Speaker 1: poster who walked in and pull Trump your loss and
Speaker 1: Mark Short and you know all of these Republicans who
Speaker 1: are proving the case against Donald Trump and Ivanka of
Speaker 1: all people. They played a clip of Ivanka saying, I'm
Speaker 1: going to paraphrase here, I believed Bill Barr. I did
Speaker 1: not believe my father. No, that was the only clip
Speaker 1: they played of her. They were asked. They were asking
Speaker 1: her and videotaped testimony. You know, what did you make
Speaker 1: of Bill Barr, you know, contradicting your father and saying
Speaker 1: the election was not stolen, was not fraudulent. And she said, yeah,
Speaker 1: I took to her what Bill Barr said. In other words,
Speaker 1: I didn't believe. And of course Trump has now truth social,
Speaker 1: not tweeted, but truth social. I call it sending out
Speaker 1: a lie, not a tweet. But when you do it,
Speaker 1: when Trump doesn't, you lie something out on truth social.
Speaker 1: And he threw Ivanka under the bus. Ivanka Trump had
Speaker 1: checked out, she didn't know, blah blah, blah blah. She's
Speaker 1: just trying to be nice to Bill Bar. I mean,
Speaker 1: she's just trying to be nice to Bill Barr. Bill
Speaker 1: Barr is not her dad, right, Bill Barr is the
Speaker 1: Attorney General of the United States at that time, And
Speaker 1: what she is saying, I'm not part of this conspiracy.
Speaker 1: I'm not part of this big lie. I'm not like
Speaker 1: my brothers who have continued to be on social media
Speaker 1: upholding my father's lie. And the other thing that Liz
Speaker 1: Chane Liz Cheney told us was that not only Scott Perry. Now,
Speaker 1: remember Scott Perry was pushing this true reasonist lawyer Jeffrey
Speaker 1: Clark from the Department of Justice on Donald Trump, saying, Hey,
Speaker 1: make this guy your attorney general because he'll weaponize the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice and he'll lie and say the election
Speaker 1: was stolen. Take him, take him, take him. So Trump
Speaker 1: wanted Jeffrey Clark. Yeah, and then what did we learn
Speaker 1: while Scott Perry begged for a presidential pardon? And it
Speaker 1: wasn't only Scott Perry. Liz Cheney told us other Republican
Speaker 1: members of Congress sought presidential pardons for their role in
Speaker 1: the insurrection. And pocket pardons are about to make a
Speaker 1: comeback and hit the news in a very big way,
Speaker 1: I predict. And here's the other thing we heard about pardons.
Speaker 1: They played a clip of Jared Kushner, who, if you
Speaker 1: can't imagine a scenario that would make him even more
Speaker 1: distasteful to you that clip did it? And here's the
Speaker 1: clip they played. They said, the Chief of the White
Speaker 1: House Counsel, Pat zipp Alone, threatened to resign because Donald
Speaker 1: Trump was trying to corruptly overturn the elections results. That's
Speaker 1: a big deal. When the White House Council threatens to
Speaker 1: resign because the president is trying to kill the democracy.
Speaker 1: And who did he report this to trying to make
Speaker 1: his way to the president, Jared Kushner. And you know
Speaker 1: what the one clip they played of Jared Kushner's testimony
Speaker 1: was he said, yeah, yeah, pat zipp Alone, you know,
Speaker 1: saying he's gonna resign. I was busy working on getting
Speaker 1: as many pardons out as I could before Trump, before
Speaker 1: the end of Trump's turn. So I just took Pat
Speaker 1: zipp Alone as whining about stuff. So here's the good
Speaker 1: news day, I'm out done. Here's the good news. Last night,
Speaker 1: Jared Kushner moved closer in my estimation to becoming a
Speaker 1: charge defendant in the conspiracy to commit offenses against the
Speaker 1: United State. It's based on that clip alone. We're not
Speaker 1: there yet, but we're getting there. And so I think
Speaker 1: pocket pardons are gonna make a comeback in a big
Speaker 1: way very soon. And I say that because of another
Speaker 1: important data point, which was when Kelly Ann Conway wrote
Speaker 1: a book. I don't know if it's alternative facts or not,
Speaker 1: but in her book she said at the end of
Speaker 1: the turner, in her very low selling book go On,
Speaker 1: at the end of Trump's turn he turned, he ambles
Speaker 1: up to her and says, this is her her word, Hey, honey,
Speaker 1: you want a pardon, And she's like, I don't think
Speaker 1: I did anything wrong. Just take one. Everybody's going to
Speaker 1: need one, right Like it's a party favor. It's it's
Speaker 1: it is. It's a parting gift. You know, you hit
Speaker 1: and take your box of rice Seroni and thanks for playing.
Speaker 1: So but here's the thing, Danielle, if he unsolicited offered
Speaker 1: Kelly an a blanket pardon, do you really think he
Speaker 1: didn't give everybody else pardons? Those people who were closer
Speaker 1: to him is family members, his criminal associates. So pocket pardons,
Speaker 1: which I've been yelling and screaming about for more than
Speaker 1: a year, are going to make a comeback in a
Speaker 1: big way. But last night, Danielle, it was a pitch
Speaker 1: perfect opening statement. And let me hasten to add I
Speaker 1: you know Benny Thompson, who opened the proceedings and who
Speaker 1: has this brilliant, understated, earnest presentation of information to us.
Speaker 1: I could listen to him talk all day. And then
Speaker 1: Liz Cheney, who has this direct in your face, unflinching.
Speaker 1: These are the crimes Donald Trump committed. Let's not lose
Speaker 1: sight of the fact that the people fighting their asses
Speaker 1: off to save our democracy. An African American man chairman
Speaker 1: of the J six Committee, a white woman vice chair
Speaker 1: of the J six Committee, and they are fighting against
Speaker 1: who Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Flynn, Steve Bannon, Roger Stone,
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Clark, John Eastman, John Jr. Moe Brooks, Jim Jordan,
Speaker 1: Kevin McCarthy, Ted Cruz, Josh Hollywood, A whole bunch of corrupt, egomaniacal,
Speaker 1: power hungry, grubbing white men. Now that just is what
Speaker 1: it is. But there's something very important about those two
Speaker 1: people who are fighting their asses off for us, and
Speaker 1: that batch of men who are trying to destroy our
Speaker 1: democracy and propping up a criminal former president in the process. Glenn,
Speaker 1: I mean, this is one of the most earth shattering
Speaker 1: things that has happened in this country. This presentation lays
Speaker 1: out everything that we've been talking about for well over
Speaker 1: a year, everything that we have known. The question that
Speaker 1: I have is is And I can't stand to say
Speaker 1: this is it enough? Is this just speaking to the
Speaker 1: choir who has been disgusted by what they have seen,
Speaker 1: who has been disgusted by what we know and continue
Speaker 1: to see the bar be raised higher and higher, the
Speaker 1: threshold get larger and larger for proof that there was
Speaker 1: willful intent to overturn the government. It's more than enough.
Speaker 1: It's more than enough. And Danielle and I'm with you.
Speaker 1: I did a piece I think it went up yesterday
Speaker 1: or the day before on MSNBC Daly, and it talked about,
Speaker 1: you know how it seems like the investigation is turned
Speaker 1: on its head, at least as compared to the way
Speaker 1: federal prosecutors normally investigate, you know, enormous criminal conspiracies. DJ
Speaker 1: wants to go first, and then they want Congress to
Speaker 1: go second, because DJ needs to get a hold of
Speaker 1: these witnesses, put them in the grand jury, lock in
Speaker 1: their testimony so they can be used effectively in future prosecutions,
Speaker 1: and then they give them over to Congress if at
Speaker 1: all to do congresses legislative investigation. So the premise of
Speaker 1: my piece is is there a method to this investigative madness?
Speaker 1: And I try to answer that in as deep a
Speaker 1: way as I can with the word restrictions. But I
Speaker 1: went on several thousand words and got cut down. But
Speaker 1: that's okay. I love the editors, I really do, because
Speaker 1: they polish up my work something fierce. There is a
Speaker 1: method to this investigative madness. The show we saw last
Speaker 1: night and that we will see for six weeks running
Speaker 1: is so important on the transparency front for the American
Speaker 1: people to see with their own eyes before criminal indictments
Speaker 1: are handed down and we're now watching trials. The reason
Speaker 1: I say that is because had the Department of Justice
Speaker 1: gone first with these thousand plus witnesses, put them all
Speaker 1: in the grand jury. First of all, I know my
Speaker 1: brother and sister federal prosecutors, they couldn't have done it
Speaker 1: as quickly as J six Committee did it. I am
Speaker 1: confident of that. So they would still be trying to
Speaker 1: grand jury witnesses. Every single witness who testified the grant
Speaker 1: before the grand jury that would have been secret by
Speaker 1: law forever unless than until they testified at a trial,
Speaker 1: which could be three years down the road, and the
Speaker 1: American people would know nothing about what those thousand witnesses
Speaker 1: saw or knew, or did or tried to stop Trump
Speaker 1: from doing, because it would have been buried in the
Speaker 1: secrecy of the grand jury for years and potentially forever. Now,
Speaker 1: with J six going first, we get it all, We
Speaker 1: the people get all that information, and then the criminal
Speaker 1: prosecutions will commence thereafter. I'm convinced, And that's just one
Speaker 1: of the benefits. Other benefits is if we took all
Speaker 1: these knuckleheads like Don Junior, Ivanka Rudy, and Jared, all
Speaker 1: of whom testified to the J six Committee, and we
Speaker 1: now know some of them incriminated Donald Trump, if we
Speaker 1: took them instead of putting them in front of the
Speaker 1: J six committee, if DJ delivered them grand jury subpoenas first,
Speaker 1: they would have invoked their Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination.
Speaker 1: They wouldn't have testified at all. So the fact that
Speaker 1: J six went first because J six, when you get
Speaker 1: a witness in front of that committee, we don't have
Speaker 1: to tell them, hey, guess what, You're a subject or
Speaker 1: a target of this investigation. You have a Fifth Amendment
Speaker 1: right against self incrimination. You do not have to testify
Speaker 1: if you don't want to. But we are legally obligated
Speaker 1: to tell those same that precise thing before we present
Speaker 1: them to the grand jury. That has a chilling effect.
Speaker 1: It shuts them down. So the fact that Jay six
Speaker 1: went first created incriminating information that would never have been
Speaker 1: created had the Department of Justice gone first. Give me
Speaker 1: one more. Yeah, I'm sorry, I'm running on no, no no.
Speaker 1: Because JA six went first, people incriminated themselves in dramatic ways.
Speaker 1: And what by people, I mean Mark Meadows, Steve Bannon,
Speaker 1: Dan Scovino, and who's Peter Navarro. For just those four people, Danielle,
Speaker 1: what they did was they defied congressional subpoenas. They committed
Speaker 1: the crime of contempt of Congress. I know only two
Speaker 1: have been indicted to haven't their mystery cases. I don't
Speaker 1: care so much about the two who haven't been indicted.
Speaker 1: That doesn't mean Meadows isn't clear. By the way, that
Speaker 1: means for policy reason, they didn't want to indict a
Speaker 1: chief of staff for the president. I disagree with that,
Speaker 1: but it's small potatoes. Those four men Air quotes because
Speaker 1: they don't deserve the title. They committed the crime of
Speaker 1: contempt of Congress in their determination to cover up the
Speaker 1: crimes of Donald Trump. That constitutes additional crimes of accessory
Speaker 1: after the fact of this prison of the felony. It
Speaker 1: helps prove their co conspirators. Those four men provided to
Speaker 1: the government, whether it's prosecutors or J six investigating investigators,
Speaker 1: powerfully incriminating information about themselves and by extension, about Donald
Speaker 1: Trump that never would have happened if DJ went first
Speaker 1: because of federal Grand jury subpoena. One, they wouldn't have
Speaker 1: blown it off. They would have just gone in and
Speaker 1: pled the fifth. And two. If they did blow it
Speaker 1: put off, the US Marshals would have knocked down their door,
Speaker 1: dragged them by the struff of their neck into court,
Speaker 1: and they would have been presented to the Grand jury,
Speaker 1: and then they would have pled the fifth. And none
Speaker 1: of that incriminating information that has been developed by the
Speaker 1: J six Committee would have been developed if the Department
Speaker 1: of Justice went for I don't know if this was
Speaker 1: the plan. I don't know if it's serendipity. I don't
Speaker 1: know if it's a combination of those two things. But
Speaker 1: I can make the argument that it was a smart
Speaker 1: tactical move. Now my complaint and I think you and
Speaker 1: I are lockstep on this is it's taken to law
Speaker 1: law to charge people with the crimes they committed. But
Speaker 1: that doesn't mean this investigative model unorthodox though it isn't
Speaker 1: isn't going to be the right model in the long run.
Speaker 1: So is J six right? Let's let's say this is
Speaker 1: J six this presentation. Do you believe forcing the Department
Speaker 1: of Justice's hand? Have we moved to the place where
Speaker 1: we're no longer where the world now is front row
Speaker 1: to the crimes that we're committed, is front row to
Speaker 1: all of the actors involved, front row to the fact
Speaker 1: that Donald Trump from election Day twenty twenty until January sixth,
Speaker 1: was told by multiple people, you did not win the election.
Speaker 1: There was no fraud. Does this force the Department of
Speaker 1: Justice's hand to say we have enough to indict because
Speaker 1: there was will and it is it willful intent because
Speaker 1: he knew. So they can't play devil's advocate for his attorneys.
Speaker 1: What are you saying that Donald Trump did not know
Speaker 1: that he lost? Like, how would you deny the reality
Speaker 1: that we're all seeing. Yeah, you can't deny the reality. Now,
Speaker 1: defense attorneys try to deny reality every day. And that's
Speaker 1: not a criticism of defense attorneys. I honor and respect
Speaker 1: them for the work they do trying to protect people
Speaker 1: accused of a crime, trying to hold the government to
Speaker 1: its proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and trying to guard
Speaker 1: against process a tutorial and police overreach and miss conduct.
Speaker 1: So I love, respect and honor defense attorneys. But when
Speaker 1: the facts show their client is guilty, they don't go
Speaker 1: into court and say, yeah, you got me, he is guilty.
Speaker 1: They go in and they distract, they miss characterized, they
Speaker 1: miss direct because that is their job. Their job is
Speaker 1: not to lie, but it's to do all those other things.
Speaker 1: Do they do it convincingly? No, not most of the time. Sometimes,
Speaker 1: But but you ask the question is this enough for DJ?
Speaker 1: Is it going to pressure them? And the answer is
Speaker 1: yes and no. But it's the answer is all good
Speaker 1: because now that we had a front row seat, like
Speaker 1: you just said, the world has a front row seat,
Speaker 1: and we're going to see all of the evidence that
Speaker 1: will give DOJ the added comfort level that it needs,
Speaker 1: not the added evidence, but the added comfort level that
Speaker 1: it needs to be able to bring these charges and
Speaker 1: not be credibly accused of doing it for political reasons.
Speaker 1: Because one we see Republicans laying out the evidence in
Speaker 1: these hearings against Donald Trump for the crimes he committed.
Speaker 1: We see a bipartisan committee of Congress laying it out.
Speaker 1: It's going to be a bipartisan committee that refers Donald
Speaker 1: Trump for prosecution. And here's the thing, Danielle, let me
Speaker 1: go back to the fact that the grand jury is secret.
Speaker 1: If we didn't know any of this evidence that we
Speaker 1: are going to see with our own eyes history in
Speaker 1: the making these next six weeks, these public hearings, if
Speaker 1: we didn't see it, you know, when we would begin
Speaker 1: to see it, maybe two or three years down the road,
Speaker 1: when we finally had public trials kickoff. Not indictments will
Speaker 1: come long before the trials, obviously, and we would see
Speaker 1: it one witness at a time. We wouldn't see the
Speaker 1: whole picture. We wouldn't see the whole movie. We wouldn't
Speaker 1: even see the trailer. We get an opening statement, but
Speaker 1: that's not as compelling as seeing the witnesses with our
Speaker 1: own eyes. And with this is what happens during criminal
Speaker 1: trials with each witness and isolation, the defense forces will
Speaker 1: amass to beat that witness and that witness the story
Speaker 1: to a bloody pulp and try to get people to
Speaker 1: disbelieve Witness one. Now tomorrow, we're going to try to
Speaker 1: get you to disbelieve Witness two, then Witness three, then
Speaker 1: Witness eight hundred and fifty, then Witness thousand, and we
Speaker 1: would be beaten down when the information about Donald Trump's
Speaker 1: crimes dribbled out incrementally over the course of months and
Speaker 1: months and months. Here we've got the whole story that
Speaker 1: is being presented to us in living color. Then the
Speaker 1: indictments will come. That's why I'm saying, although it's taken
Speaker 1: too long, and although democracy hangs in the ballance, and
Speaker 1: that's the part I will never be able to get past,
Speaker 1: this may be a smart tactical approach to this whole
Speaker 1: big criminal ball of wax. Last question, Gloom, What happens
Speaker 1: if nothing happens, What happens if this is it? All
Speaker 1: it is is a docuseries six part You know that
Speaker 1: the world is captivated by and nothing happens. That's the
Speaker 1: most important question right there, and that's the one that's
Speaker 1: easiest to answer. Our democracy dies. And the reason our
Speaker 1: democracy dies is because we have seen and we will
Speaker 1: continue to see the crimes, the seditious conspiracy, the inciting
Speaker 1: and insurrection, and the treason, flat out treason. Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: having an allegiance to the United States, waged war, levied
Speaker 1: war against the United States. And I wish we had
Speaker 1: hours to talk about what we saw last night. That
Speaker 1: supports that conclusion, like he wouldn't call for rein enforcements
Speaker 1: to defend the capital, so Mike Pence had to assume
Speaker 1: the duties of the presidency and call for reinforcements. That's
Speaker 1: pretty damn dramatic. That doesn't make Mike Pence a hero.
Speaker 1: But Mike Pence did what he could, overstepping is the
Speaker 1: bounds of his authority to protect and defend the people
Speaker 1: in the Capitol. When Donald Trump abdicated his responsibility to
Speaker 1: do that, he waged, he levied war against the United States.
Speaker 1: That's treason. So we've seen all this, We're gonna see
Speaker 1: it all with our own eyes. If nothing comes of it,
Speaker 1: if no one is criminally held accountable, then ron Da
Speaker 1: Santis in the horrific event he becomes the Republican nominee
Speaker 1: because he is a mini Trump. He aspires to be
Speaker 1: all that Donald Trump is. On the criminality front end,
Speaker 1: then some, and on the weaponizing of government front end.
Speaker 1: Then some. DJ will be giving ron Da Santis and
Speaker 1: those of his ilk not just permission but encouragement to
Speaker 1: do everything Donald Trump did. And then some that represents
Speaker 1: the end of our democracy. DJ will indict Donald Trump
Speaker 1: and company because one hundred and ten thousand employees there
Speaker 1: are not interested in seeing our democracy end. From your lips, Glenn,
Speaker 1: we will follow this, follow you, and follow and see
Speaker 1: what comes. If it is at the end of this
Speaker 1: six part presentation, if it is midway through. But my god,
Speaker 1: if this happens and we are crickets, don't I don't
Speaker 1: know if midterms matter, right, is what is what I
Speaker 1: will say. I don't know if anything matters if there
Speaker 1: is no movement. So I pray that what this is
Speaker 1: is forcing the Department of Justice's hand. Maybe they've already
Speaker 1: been we know, you know that they've been slowly indicting
Speaker 1: the foot soldiers, But my god, they have got to
Speaker 1: act after this. Glenn Kirshner, as always such a pleasure.
Speaker 1: We appreciate you. Thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 1: I'll see you next week, Danielle. Thanks. It's no secret
Speaker 1: that the news is horsepill hard to swallow. Thankfully, there's
Speaker 1: The Bituation Room podcast hosted by comedian and commentator Francesca
Speaker 1: free Er and Tini for a lighter take on the
Speaker 1: heavy staff. Each week, the Bituation Room brings you progressive comedians, experts,
Speaker 1: and activists to break down the issues in a way
Speaker 1: that won't just leave you crying under a weighted blanket.
Speaker 1: Get the Bituation Room on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, and
Speaker 1: streaming on YouTube and Twitch. That is for me today,
Speaker 1: Dear friends on woke f as always, power to the
Speaker 1: people and to all the people power, Get woke and
Speaker 1: stay woke as fuck.