Speaker 1: Good morning, peeps, and welcome to wikate F Daily with
Speaker 1: me your girl, Danielle Moody reporting from the Brooklyn Bunker. Folks,
Speaker 1: I hope that you all had a RESTful and the
Speaker 1: rejuvenating weekend. UM. If you celebrated the Easter holiday, passover
Speaker 1: or celebrating in the midst of Ramadan, um, I hope
Speaker 1: that you had a joyous occasion with family and friends,
Speaker 1: UM as I did getting the opportunity to spend some
Speaker 1: really much needed time with good friends, new babies, um,
Speaker 1: and just enjoy some play. As we head into this week,
Speaker 1: I can't help but wonder, you know, at the beginning
Speaker 1: of each and every week, I can't help but wonder,
Speaker 1: will this be the week that Merrick Garland takes action?
Speaker 1: Will be the week that there is no other news
Speaker 1: story other than the fact that Donald Trump and company
Speaker 1: are indicted with mountains and mountains of evidence that show
Speaker 1: that they worked in practice, in step by step and
Speaker 1: lockstep with one another in order to overturn our election.
Speaker 1: Is this going to be the week when Don Trump
Speaker 1: Junior is picked up for having text messages back and
Speaker 1: forth that signal right to Mark Meadows and to all
Speaker 1: Republicans that we quote own all the paths to power?
Speaker 1: Is it going to be the week that Jared Kushner
Speaker 1: gets picked up and is an indictment is opened and
Speaker 1: an investigation is opened into oh, I don't know what
Speaker 1: was worth two billion dollars from Mohammed been Salam. Why
Speaker 1: would Mohammed bin Salam go against his own advisors, who
Speaker 1: we know don't are not filled with scruple or morals
Speaker 1: to decide to back someone who his own business partners
Speaker 1: say is not a good businessman, this is risky, it's
Speaker 1: two billion dollars, but decide in any way to go
Speaker 1: forward with his business plan with Jared Kushner. Why is that?
Speaker 1: Why is it that we allow the media to continue
Speaker 1: to have conversations on the front page of every major
Speaker 1: newspaper about Hunter Biden's laptop when Hunter Biden is not
Speaker 1: inside of the White House, When Hunter Biden's laptop is
Speaker 1: just as OH I don't know, convenient and necessary to
Speaker 1: the Republican narrative as Hillary Clinton's emails were. But then
Speaker 1: we saw what happened when Trump went into the White House.
Speaker 1: We learned about oh I don't know, Ivanka Trump using
Speaker 1: a private server. We learned about other people within the
Speaker 1: Republican administration and party using private servers. But this was
Speaker 1: all the rage, all the rage for the twenty sixteen
Speaker 1: election cycle. So what do we think right that Republicans
Speaker 1: are setting themselves up for. Well, I can tell you
Speaker 1: what my thoughts are, which is this, it would be
Speaker 1: very convenient for when Republicans, if and when they were
Speaker 1: to win midterms, decide that they're going to open up
Speaker 1: a commission and investigations into Hunter Biden and his relationships
Speaker 1: in Europe and what he knew and when he knew whatever,
Speaker 1: just to make up what a media circus. And you
Speaker 1: see what frustrates me about this is that Democrats don't
Speaker 1: need to make up a media circus. They just need
Speaker 1: to share the truth about what they have been covered
Speaker 1: over the last two years or so of investigations around
Speaker 1: Donald Trump and company. You see, Democrats don't need to
Speaker 1: make up anything. They don't need to lie. All they
Speaker 1: need to do is tell the truth. But tell it
Speaker 1: on national television, tell it on every goddamn station, tell
Speaker 1: it on radio, tell it on satellite, tell it on podcast,
Speaker 1: tell it anywhere and everywhere. Turn this campaign around securing
Speaker 1: our democracy into an all out media onslaught where even
Speaker 1: if you are an avid Fox News watcher, you could
Speaker 1: not learn right about what is going on, because it
Speaker 1: would be everywhere that you could try so desperately to
Speaker 1: stick your head in the sand of the Fox News orbit,
Speaker 1: but you would still know that something is going on
Speaker 1: with Donald Trump and all of his sickothans. Is this
Speaker 1: going to be the week, dear friends, when we open
Speaker 1: up an investigation into Jinny Thomas and we discover whether
Speaker 1: or not we have a current active member of the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court who in just two months is getting ready
Speaker 1: to strip away, strip away abortion care for women and
Speaker 1: people with uteruss in this country that are getting ready
Speaker 1: to make decisions to strip away New York City's ability
Speaker 1: to be able to create policy gun policy that keeps
Speaker 1: us all safe. After a mass shooting last week on
Speaker 1: a fucking train. So do you see how the Democrats
Speaker 1: desire to do nothing, to make nothing of note about
Speaker 1: what is being discovered and what we know to be
Speaker 1: true a scene if you are not utilizing media in
Speaker 1: every single form to tell the truth far and wide
Speaker 1: to the American people. And I don't mean just giving
Speaker 1: people a bunch of statistics and facts. I mean tell
Speaker 1: the fucking story, because you see, friends, this is what
Speaker 1: Republicans are really good at. They're really good at now
Speaker 1: rating a story about paint you the picture of who
Speaker 1: they think is the most dangerous person. Right, I'll tell
Speaker 1: you something funny. I went on MSNBC yesterday morning, Easter Morning,
Speaker 1: and you know, friend of the show Katie Fang has
Speaker 1: a new early morning show on the weekends on MSNBC
Speaker 1: called Katie Fang. So I joined Katie and our other
Speaker 1: friend Kurt Bardella on the show and she's like, Oh,
Speaker 1: we have to talk about this whole thing that Tucker
Speaker 1: Carlson is doing with his media company, Like, what is this? Well,
Speaker 1: Tucker Carlson is doing a quote unquote documentary on what
Speaker 1: he believes is one of the biggest issues that is
Speaker 1: hitting the United States that apparently we're not talking about.
Speaker 1: Is it gun violence? No? Is it climate change? No?
Speaker 1: Is it the crumbling of our democracy and voting rights? No?
Speaker 1: Is it LGBTQ policy, No? Is it abortion? No, it
Speaker 1: is the fact that testosterone levels in men are dropping
Speaker 1: and this spell's disaster apparently for the country and for
Speaker 1: the planet. Yes, I shit, you not Google Tucker Carlson
Speaker 1: documentary trailer, and you folks will believe that you are
Speaker 1: watching somebody's homo erotic something or other, because it's sure
Speaker 1: as hell doesn't look like a documentary on anything other
Speaker 1: than white men with bare chests and six packs, drinking
Speaker 1: glasses of raw eggs and tanning their nether regions. Yes,
Speaker 1: that's what's in the trailer. That's what I discussed on MSNBC.
Speaker 1: And you know, the question was posed, which I the
Speaker 1: show tweeted out and I will be sure to share
Speaker 1: it with all of you in the clip. But Katie asked, Danielle,
Speaker 1: what do you see when you see this like trailer?
Speaker 1: And I said, well, you know, I'll be honest with you,
Speaker 1: I've never seen a better example of white male fragility
Speaker 1: in my entire life than a Tucker Carlson and b
Speaker 1: this trailer, right, And the fact that the more that
Speaker 1: we discuss equity, the more that we deviate from the
Speaker 1: lens of sis white straight men in this country, the
Speaker 1: more terrified Tucker Carlson and all of his white male
Speaker 1: Fox News viewers become, you see, because in order for
Speaker 1: them to succeed, subjugation is necessary. Does that sound like
Speaker 1: strength to you? No? It sounds like really small, fragile
Speaker 1: people that in order to feel big and strong, need
Speaker 1: to step on other people because they believe that that's
Speaker 1: a sign of strength. You see, Tucker Carlson is terrified
Speaker 1: about what is going to happen to what he believes
Speaker 1: as an endangered species, the straight white Republican male. My god,
Speaker 1: if we're not chaining women to children and inside of
Speaker 1: the household, if you're not able to beat and kill
Speaker 1: and disparage black people, right, then how will we know
Speaker 1: that we're better than everybody else? Right? That's the mindset
Speaker 1: of Tucker Carlson and the entirety of the white men
Speaker 1: who watch Fox News. So I will say say this,
Speaker 1: there are many pressing issues many there are tons of them.
Speaker 1: Not one of them has to do with the testosterone
Speaker 1: levels of white men that are worthy of a documentary,
Speaker 1: None of them. But my god, does this man screaming
Speaker 1: at the top of his lungs frantically about testosterone levels
Speaker 1: and masculinity and toxic masculinity at that give you everything
Speaker 1: that you need to know about Tucker Carlson and the Trumpers,
Speaker 1: the trump Men. So I don't know, friends, what this
Speaker 1: New Week will bring us but coming up next my
Speaker 1: conversation with our friend Glenn Kirshner to walk us through
Speaker 1: where we are in terms of the House Commission, the
Speaker 1: one six Commission, whether or not this is going to
Speaker 1: be the week that they refer write a letter to
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice that they refer Donald Trump and
Speaker 1: company receive criminal charges because of the detailed investigation and
Speaker 1: now to Glenn's point, over nine hundred interviews that they
Speaker 1: have done that are leading us in one direction, in
Speaker 1: one direction only, which is Donald Trump needs to be
Speaker 1: criminally indicted. And Glenn and I will go through why
Speaker 1: the tepidness? What the hell we are waiting for? Are
Speaker 1: we waiting for Republicans to take back over right the
Speaker 1: House and the Senate to make a absolute mockery right
Speaker 1: of what is left of our democracy and our government
Speaker 1: structures and agencies? Is that what we are waiting for.
Speaker 1: That conversation, folks, is coming up next, folks. As always,
Speaker 1: you know that I am thrilled when I have the
Speaker 1: opportunity to sit down with our friend Glenn Kirshner, a
Speaker 1: host of Justice Matters and an MSNBC legal analyst. Glenn,
Speaker 1: so let me tell you that when I heard the
Speaker 1: news with regard to the one six House Commission and
Speaker 1: the fact that there was a possibility that they were
Speaker 1: split on whether or not to go the whole marathon,
Speaker 1: not just twenty six miles, but the point two, which
Speaker 1: would be to end with a referral to the Justice
Speaker 1: Department for criminal charges for Donald Trump. The murmurings are, well,
Speaker 1: we don't want to hamper what the Justice Department is
Speaker 1: already doing. We don't want to, you know, speed up
Speaker 1: Merrick Garland's glacial like pace. We don't want to do
Speaker 1: these things. What was your reaction when those stories started
Speaker 1: to perculate out. Yeah. I think people tend to overthink
Speaker 1: this stuff sometimes, Danielle. I've heard some of the analysts say, well,
Speaker 1: if they make criminal referrals, then people will attack anything
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice does as being politically motivated. I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: no matter what the Department of Justice does, they will
Speaker 1: be attacked for doing it based on politics and not
Speaker 1: based on the facts and the law once they start
Speaker 1: dropping indictments on these people. So I don't know why
Speaker 1: we fall into the trap of deciding we have to
Speaker 1: depart from doing what's right for fear of what the
Speaker 1: wrong People will say, and how they'll try to spin
Speaker 1: it and mischaracterize it to criticize us. That's insane. So
Speaker 1: I think Representative Jamie Raskin laid that to rest last
Speaker 1: nights Hayes, and I can quote precisely what it's said,
Speaker 1: because it's actually encouraging for a couple of reasons. First
Speaker 1: of all, he said, the truth is coming out in
Speaker 1: these hearings we're holding behind closed doors. He said, regarding
Speaker 1: criminal earls, we have not been shy about criminal evidence
Speaker 1: we've encountered, and our report will be profuse in setting
Speaker 1: forth crimes that have not yet been alleged. And then
Speaker 1: he said about the public hearings, it will be both
Speaker 1: agonizing and riveting for the country to see just how
Speaker 1: close we came to losing it all. But Representative Raskin said,
Speaker 1: I don't understand what the media is talking about when
Speaker 1: they say we're not going to make criminal referrals. We
Speaker 1: haven't been shy about it before, we won't be shy
Speaker 1: about it in the future. And you know, I think
Speaker 1: when we see all of the criminality that they have
Speaker 1: captured in evidence, evidence that can be used by the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice. When the J six Committee is done.
Speaker 1: It's gonna just sort of knock the wind out of us,
Speaker 1: and it will give even more reason for DJ to
Speaker 1: have to indict these people, which I still believe they will.
Speaker 1: You know, Glenn, the Justice Department, these are your old cronies, right,
Speaker 1: many of them, I'm certain of probably still there. But
Speaker 1: you have an inner working and understanding. What are we
Speaker 1: missing here in terms of the pace that Merrick Garland
Speaker 1: and team are working at Because to your point, to
Speaker 1: Congressman Raskin's point, the evidence is overwhelming, and yet we
Speaker 1: keep hearing this same phrase, Oh, I don't we don't
Speaker 1: want to be perceived as if we're playing politics. I'm
Speaker 1: confused because I don't know what other kind of game
Speaker 1: you play in Washington, DC but politics, Right Like, I
Speaker 1: don't know what else you would call trying to overthrow
Speaker 1: the government from inside the White House, other than playing politics.
Speaker 1: So we have the evidence and the public on our side,
Speaker 1: why do we still hear about this tepidness? So if
Speaker 1: we're missing anything, we're just missing sort of the culture
Speaker 1: and the mindset of federal prosecutors. Because I was on
Speaker 1: the inside for decades, I had to fight my own
Speaker 1: superiors at the Department of Justice at times to bring
Speaker 1: cases that were maiden legal voyages that presented novel issues
Speaker 1: where there was no rock solid precedent to support what
Speaker 1: I wanted to do, even though it was the right
Speaker 1: thing to do based on perhaps a new and novel
Speaker 1: set of facts. I sometimes had to fight. I did
Speaker 1: it three times. I had to fight to bring novel cases.
Speaker 1: I won approval to bring all three. I lost one
Speaker 1: of those three, and I won the other two. I
Speaker 1: was never afraid to lose, you know, you know, there's
Speaker 1: no shame in losing, But there's nothing but shame in
Speaker 1: declining to bring a righteous case for fear of losing.
Speaker 1: So the only thing that I think we're missing is
Speaker 1: that there's a reason the perception is that the FEDS
Speaker 1: never lose a case. It's because they rarely bring very difficult,
Speaker 1: challenging novel cases. And this is a challenging and novel case,
Speaker 1: not on the facts. The facts prove a thousand times
Speaker 1: over Donald Trump committed any number of crimes against the
Speaker 1: people of the United States, but it is still novel
Speaker 1: and challenging to prosecute a former president of the United States.
Speaker 1: That's the only thing that I think people on the
Speaker 1: outside are missing. The timidity and the handwringing and the
Speaker 1: legal navel gazing of some of the folks at the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice can be paralyzing. They can often find
Speaker 1: all sorts of reasons to decline to bring a case
Speaker 1: rather than bringing a challenging case where there's a risk
Speaker 1: they might lose. So that, I think is why this
Speaker 1: thing is moving so slowly, at a glacial pace, as
Speaker 1: you put it. I do believe this iceberg is going
Speaker 1: to ultimately bump into a big old indictment and these
Speaker 1: cases will be indicted, but not quickly enough. And I
Speaker 1: just hope that these cases are indicted in time for
Speaker 1: our democracy to recover, because that's an open question. You know.
Speaker 1: One of the things that I want to also bring
Speaker 1: up with regard to Representative Raskin's comments on all In,
Speaker 1: which is the fact that you know, he's saying, how
Speaker 1: close we almost came to losing our democracy. The reality
Speaker 1: is is you know, to quote somebody that I don't
Speaker 1: really like, Bill Maher, he said, this is a slow
Speaker 1: moving coup, right, So we didn't actually stop anything. We
Speaker 1: hit pause. And so for me, when I even hear
Speaker 1: members that I agree with and I'm always one hundred
Speaker 1: percent in Raskins camp. It is the fact that I
Speaker 1: believe that they think that this ended on one six,
Speaker 1: when we were finally able to get people out of
Speaker 1: the Capitol Building, as opposed to making the connection with
Speaker 1: this ongoing coup, with the legislation that is being put
Speaker 1: out across this country, whether it's abortion or don't say gay,
Speaker 1: or voter suppression laws, and then the continue continuation of
Speaker 1: the Big Lie. The other thing that is that again
Speaker 1: we're supposed to be going after the architects and those
Speaker 1: that are not just the foot soldiers that entered the
Speaker 1: Capitol Building that day. Where are we as a country
Speaker 1: in investigating whether or not one of our sitting Supreme
Speaker 1: Court justices, you know, maybe compromise because his wife was
Speaker 1: going back and forth with then Chief of Staff Mark
Speaker 1: Meadows on the day of the insurrection. I don't know
Speaker 1: where we are, but I haven't heard any announcement that
Speaker 1: either of the judiciary committees in the House or the
Speaker 1: Senate is contemplating opening a hearing. I think we should
Speaker 1: open an impeachment inquiry. I'm not saying we need to
Speaker 1: rush to impeachment, but we do need to rush to transparent.
Speaker 1: We need to figure out why Justice Thomas violated every
Speaker 1: rule of ethics when it comes to a judge removing
Speaker 1: himself or herself from a case in which they have
Speaker 1: a conflict. He presided over a case involving whether his
Speaker 1: wife's incriminating let's call them what they are, text messages
Speaker 1: to Mark Meadows should be buried from the J six
Speaker 1: Committee in public view, or should be revealed and run
Speaker 1: the risk of incriminating his wife. There's not a judge
Speaker 1: in the United States that doesn't understand other than Clarence Thomas,
Speaker 1: and he fully understands it out that you must remove
Speaker 1: yourself from a case in which you have a family
Speaker 1: conflict right a family's interest at stake. And here's what
Speaker 1: this has proved. It's proved that the Supreme Court cannot
Speaker 1: be trusted to police itself, and we need to do
Speaker 1: something about that. It's a challenge because of the separation
Speaker 1: of powers, and it's hard for Congress to do anything
Speaker 1: to install any sort of oversight or guardrails on the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. But what you have to do is open
Speaker 1: a hearing, an impeachment inquiry, to see whether articles of
Speaker 1: impeachment against Justice Thomas are the right thing to do
Speaker 1: to help restore the legitimacy of the Supreme Court, because
Speaker 1: right now the legitimacy of the Supreme Court is about
Speaker 1: as low as it could yet, and it's about to
Speaker 1: make all kinds of decisions that may end up revoking
Speaker 1: women's constitutional privacy rights for example. You know, this is
Speaker 1: a toxic mix and a potentially explosive mix. When you
Speaker 1: have an illegitimate court about to revoke women's constitutional privacy rights.
Speaker 1: How long? How long will the people of our nation
Speaker 1: accept this? You know, I would never advocate violence, but
Speaker 1: you know, these people are creating a powder keg right,
Speaker 1: and they better start working to enhance the integrity and
Speaker 1: the legitimacy of the institutions of government, not continue to
Speaker 1: tear them down. I just you know, I got to
Speaker 1: tell you when you say that you and you lay
Speaker 1: these things out, because I have been saying for so
Speaker 1: long on this show that I believe that things are
Speaker 1: going to get bloodier before they get better. And I
Speaker 1: don't advocate for violence at all, but when you create
Speaker 1: the conditions for you know, for economic devastation, for lack
Speaker 1: of transparency and integrity in our in our government agencies.
Speaker 1: When you're seeing the poll numbers not only for the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court, but for the President of the United States
Speaker 1: Congress as a whole, you know, in the toilet, what
Speaker 1: that tells us is that all is not well right,
Speaker 1: and there's all only so much pressure that you can
Speaker 1: put on people before they explode. You know. I want
Speaker 1: to talk a bit more about where we are with
Speaker 1: the insurrection because several things have again come to light,
Speaker 1: and I just notice in media that they are not
Speaker 1: making front page news, such as Donald Trump Junior's text messages.
Speaker 1: Since we're talking about text messages, the number of text
Speaker 1: messages that went and said, we own all the paths
Speaker 1: to power? How is how is Don Junior still walking
Speaker 1: around Glenn, We own all the paths to power? So
Speaker 1: what that alerts is that they knew they lost. They
Speaker 1: knew they lost. So again the denial and the lies around, oh,
Speaker 1: we just wanted to certify and make sure that this
Speaker 1: election was free and fair. They knew that they lost.
Speaker 1: And what Don Junior's text message allows us to get
Speaker 1: an insight into is that they did not care. The
Speaker 1: treasonous bravado of Don Junior's text to Mark Meadows and
Speaker 1: not only we own all the paths to power, but
Speaker 1: on November fifth, before the votes were counted, before the
Speaker 1: election was called, he said my father's He actually said, potuses,
Speaker 1: my father's second term must start now before the election
Speaker 1: votes were even tallied. That is so deeply treasonous in
Speaker 1: the lay sense of trees and not in the legal
Speaker 1: sense that how can that not earn Don Junior on
Speaker 1: a you know, as a key defendant in the conspiracy
Speaker 1: indictment to commit offenses against the United States by overturning
Speaker 1: the results of an election. He said it. I mean,
Speaker 1: he just said, my father must be installed as president
Speaker 1: now before the election results are even final, before a
Speaker 1: president has been announced. That is that's insanity, it's criminality.
Speaker 1: And yet when there's so much criminality going on, it does,
Speaker 1: and when everything now is overshadowed by the war in Ukraine,
Speaker 1: you know, we are left to wonder will any of
Speaker 1: this ever come home to roost. I still think it will,
Speaker 1: but you know, as each day passes, I get a
Speaker 1: little less confident that DJ will end up doing, you know,
Speaker 1: what it needs to do to save our democracy, to
Speaker 1: give it a fighting chance, because if you wait too long,
Speaker 1: we will lose it all. So Don Junior is yet
Speaker 1: another spoke in the wheel of the hub and spoke
Speaker 1: conspiracy that is Donald Trump and all his criminal associates.
Speaker 1: I mean, not to mention, you know, the casual and
Speaker 1: US and the two billion dollars that Jared Kushner was
Speaker 1: able to recoup from Mohammed bin Salam post Donald Trump's presidency,
Speaker 1: after his own advisors. I mean, when the advisors, when
Speaker 1: the Saudi advisors are saying to MBS, oh he is
Speaker 1: not actually you know, on the up and up. He
Speaker 1: doesn't really have much business acumen and we may not
Speaker 1: want to get in bed with him. But then he
Speaker 1: decides to give him two billion dollars. Anyway, what is
Speaker 1: that a payoff for? But nobody's investigating that. But we
Speaker 1: got Fox News still talking about Hunter Biden's laptop, not
Speaker 1: two billion dollars that were that was given to Jared Kushner,
Speaker 1: not these text messages that went from Don Junior to
Speaker 1: Mark Meadows the day before the election. And you know,
Speaker 1: you say, and we need action so that we have
Speaker 1: time to restore our democracy. But as I list out
Speaker 1: these things, Glenn, I don't know if restoration is actually
Speaker 1: possible because the corrosion is so deep, right, the corrosion
Speaker 1: is so deep, and the desire to make any moves
Speaker 1: to the contrary to show some fighting spirit seems to
Speaker 1: be non existent. Yeah, if restoration wasn't a possibility, you know,
Speaker 1: I think I would just kind of pack up my
Speaker 1: little camera gear and go to Mexico and get my
Speaker 1: PBR and just sit there and drink and just you know,
Speaker 1: call it a day. Wait, But I still think, I
Speaker 1: still think restoration is possible. So lastly, we had another
Speaker 1: decision with one of the foot soldiers in in the insurrection.
Speaker 1: These cases have started to trickle in with um, you know,
Speaker 1: with decisions coming in. We had one that was completely exonerated.
Speaker 1: We've had others where we've looked at sentencing to a
Speaker 1: matter of months to a couple of years. What's the
Speaker 1: significance with the most recent insurrectionist and how they decided
Speaker 1: to plead their case. That makes it interesting for the
Speaker 1: larger scope that we're waiting on the DJ four. Yeah,
Speaker 1: yesterday's guilty verdicts across the board, guilty verdicts against the
Speaker 1: defendant named Dustin Thompson are actually pretty significant. Dustin Thompson
Speaker 1: argued to the jury, his lawyer argued quite effectively, I
Speaker 1: will say, and he testified at his own trial that listen,
Speaker 1: I only came to DC on January sixth because the
Speaker 1: President told me to. And I only marched on the
Speaker 1: Capitol because the President told me to, because he said
Speaker 1: that my vote had been stolen from me, and the
Speaker 1: election was stolen and it wasn't legitimate. My president was
Speaker 1: being stolen from me. Joe Biden was not going to
Speaker 1: be a legitimate president. And he told me go to
Speaker 1: the Capitol and fight like hell, or you won't have
Speaker 1: a country anymore. And I love my country, and I
Speaker 1: listened to my president. He told me those things. I
Speaker 1: didn't think he was lying to me. And so there's
Speaker 1: a couple of really important takeaways from more and more
Speaker 1: of the insurrectionists who are mounting that defense. The first
Speaker 1: takeaway is that's not a legal defense. Sorry about your luck,
Speaker 1: but I believe, I absolutely believe that mister Thompson and
Speaker 1: so many of these other insurrectionists did what they did
Speaker 1: because Donald Trump lied to them, told them their vote
Speaker 1: was stolen, and told them they have to march on
Speaker 1: the Capitol and stop the certification. So it's not a
Speaker 1: legal defense. It's not a factual defense. The jury convicted
Speaker 1: them basically before they even had enough time to pick
Speaker 1: a foreman. They just banged three hours. They banged them
Speaker 1: out guilty on all six counts. It is a mitigator
Speaker 1: because it's not like this guy just woke up and said,
Speaker 1: I'm going to go attack the capitol. This guy said
Speaker 1: the President told me to attack the capitol, so I'm
Speaker 1: going to do what the President tells me because I
Speaker 1: don't know. I'm not smart enough to figure this stuff
Speaker 1: out for myself. That's a mitigator. So maybe he gets
Speaker 1: lesser punishment than if he was just an abject criminal
Speaker 1: who did this for fun. Right. But here, I think
Speaker 1: is the most important takeaway at Donald Trump's trial for
Speaker 1: inciting the insurrection, which I believe will happen someday. Now,
Speaker 1: you take Dustin Thompson to put him on the stand
Speaker 1: as a prosecution witness against Donald Trump. You say, mister Thompson,
Speaker 1: please tell this jury what you told your jury about
Speaker 1: why you attacked the capitol. And he repeats all these things,
Speaker 1: and if he doesn't, you impeach him with his transcript,
Speaker 1: and you use his trial testimony to prove all of
Speaker 1: this to the jury and say thank you, mister Thompson,
Speaker 1: and you turn to the jury and say, ladies and gentlemen,
Speaker 1: there is proof positive that Donald Trump incited directed the insurrection.
Speaker 1: Find him guilty. So what DJ is doing by bringing
Speaker 1: all of these lesser cases against Donald Trump's foot soldiers
Speaker 1: is they are building an evidentiary record that they can
Speaker 1: then use to indict, prosecute, and convict Donald Trump and
Speaker 1: the others who are responsible for inciting the insurrection. So
Speaker 1: there is some good coming out of these prosecutions. Last
Speaker 1: question for you today, Glenn, will we be hearing will
Speaker 1: we be seeing these public hearings in the way that
Speaker 1: we sat through Benghazi, which came up with zero goose egg,
Speaker 1: absolutely nothing but a media smear campaign against Hillary Clinton
Speaker 1: before she was going to run for president. When is
Speaker 1: that going to happen? The latest, the latest I think
Speaker 1: word we got from any member of the J six
Speaker 1: committee was, I think a few weeks ago they said
Speaker 1: they were hoping for late April. Then I may have
Speaker 1: heard somebody say may, but I can't swear to it.
Speaker 1: My guess is it's going to be late spring, early summer.
Speaker 1: And as Representative Raskin said, it will be both agonizing
Speaker 1: and riveting for the country to see this evidence, this testimony,
Speaker 1: which will include evidence of crimes that nobody has seen yet.
Speaker 1: And he also said, by the way, there have been
Speaker 1: a number of heroes that have emerged in the testimony
Speaker 1: of these eight approaching nine hundred witnesses, and he said,
Speaker 1: we're going to make sure we highlight them as well.
Speaker 1: These god these folks understand, these men and women on
Speaker 1: the committee understand the importance of this hearing may be
Speaker 1: important beyond any public hearing we've ever had in our nation,
Speaker 1: and I do think that will help momentum gather for accountability.
Speaker 1: I still think the Department of there have been reports
Speaker 1: in recent weeks they've expanded their criminal probe with the
Speaker 1: Grand Jury issuing subpoenas to people in Trump's orbit that
Speaker 1: we haven't heard about. So what we know, Danielle, based
Speaker 1: on that reporting is there have been Grand jury subpoenas
Speaker 1: going out to former officials in Trump's orbit, as the
Speaker 1: Washington Post reported, and we haven't heard anything about it.
Speaker 1: So what does that tell us? Yes, they are investigating,
Speaker 1: and it's not leaking in the way it typically would.
Speaker 1: So let's hold on to that and you hope that
Speaker 1: they're doing whatever we kind of suspect they're doing. They're
Speaker 1: doing it, you know, a hundredfold. I mean, God willing,
Speaker 1: Glenn As always, thank you so much for making the
Speaker 1: time to join wike AP and walk us through this
Speaker 1: slow walk that we're doing to justice. But God willing
Speaker 1: we get there sometime soon and in enough time to
Speaker 1: actually save restore our democracy. We appreciate you. Thank you, Danielle.
Speaker 1: That is it for me today here on Woke f
Speaker 1: AS always. Power to the people and to all the people. Power,
Speaker 1: get woke and stay woke as fuck.