Skip to main content

tv   All In With Chris Hayes  MSNBC  June 30, 2022 12:00am-1:00am PDT

12:00 am
with every crime imaginable -- >> asha rangappa and chuck rosenberg on the consciousness of guilt jumping off the screen at these hearings and what the department of justice is doing about it. and how donald trump and his mob dusted off a pre-existing american script to try to pull off their insurrection when all in starts right now. good evening from new york, i'm chris hayes. it did not seem like there could possibly be any secrets left, that there could be possibly be new have literally shocking details about the ex ex-president's plot to end american democracy. and yet, oh my, there is. yesterday's historic testimony from cassidy hutchison, and advisor, to chief of staff mark meadows, forced everyone to update their basic understanding of what it was we saw in the period leading up to and during the insurrection on january 6th, both for donald trump and the people who supported his attempts to end the peaceful transfer of power.
12:01 am
the old model of our understanding of what happened on january 6th is basically as follows. the ex president told a bunch of lies about voter fraud and he refused to accept he lost, whether he believed it or not is unclear, he nurture those lies in this impetuous frenzy, rage filled, haphazard way. he threw everything against the wall to see what would stick in and out of court in a desperate attempt to cling to power, which culminated in this inciting speech on january 6th to a mob he riled up and then sent to the capitol and there, hopped up on trump's incitement and lies and reckless disregard for both safety and american democracy, the mob broke into the capitol, ransacked it, threatening the lives of members and calling to hang mike pence. and while they did, trump sat and watched and refused to lift a finger to stop them, as things got more and more out of hand and more and more violent. that was our almost immediate understanding of what happened that today. and based on that understanding
12:02 am
of the events alone, donald trump deserved to be discredited, impeached, barred from future office, living the remainder of his days as a reviled figure. but now, in light of what the hearings have presented, with the committee has presented -- and particularly yesterday's revelations -- it really seems like that old model was actually an insufficient understanding of what happened. another way of understanding what happened, based on the testimony we got yesterday and more of the evidence, is that a scheme to end american democracy, for a variety of means, culminated in a plot by fascist thugs to sack the capitol and that donald trump was a participant in that action. not, it got out of hand, not he was to self absorbed to do anything -- no! to be very clear, the level of trump's actual foreknowledge is still being determined.
12:03 am
we don't actually know yet. again, based on the evidence. but we now know that the ex president wanted the plot to go further than just a public pressure campaign that would overturn the election. there is a whole new level of culpability and then we had initially understood. because yesterday, we learned the extent to which trump's top lawyer, rudy giuliani, and his own chief of staff, mark meadows, knew what was going to happen. >> do you remember, mr. giuliani, meeting with mr. meadows on january 2nd, 2021? >> i do. he met with mr. meadows in the evening of january 2nd, 2021. >> and we understand that you walk to mr. giuliani out of the white house that night. and he talked to you about january 6th. what do you remember him saying? >> as mr. giuliani and i were watching walking two vehicles that evening, he looked at me and said something to the effect of, gosh, [inaudible] excited for the sixth, it's going to be a great day.
12:04 am
i remember looking at him saying, rudy, could you explain what is happening on the sixth? and he had responded something to the effect of, we are going to the capitol, it's going to be great, the president is going to be there. he is going to look powerful, he is going to get the members, he is going to be with the senators. talk to the chief about it, talk to the chief about it, he knows about it. >> and did you go back, then, up to the west wing and tell mr. meadows about your conversation with mr. giuliani? >> i. did after mr. giuliani had left the campus that evening, i went back up to our office and i found mr. meadows in his office on the couch, scrolling through his phone. i remember leaning against the doorway and saying, there was an interesting conversation with rudy, mark. it sounds like we are going to go to the capitol. he didn't look up from his phone. and said something to the effect of, there is a lot going on, cassidy, but i don't know. things might get real, real bad on january 6th. >> that's giuliani and meadows knowing there was a plan to go to the capitol, four days before the sacking of the
12:05 am
capitol, the mob stormed the capitol, we're going to the capitol, the president is going to the capitol. we already knew the likes of steve bannon, the podcaster into shirted trump advisor, warning that all hell would break loose on the sixth. but now it seems that meadows and giuliani, two of trump's closest advisers in this frothy period of the election, also knew something was going down that day, specifically at the capitol. and that meadows feared it would get bad. we didn't know that before. we also know giuliani was part of a group of people plotting the coup that [inaudible] that we have known, and that that group included trump advisor roger stone among others. stone, who was in contact with far-right on groups like the proud boys and oath keepers. we also know that both of those right-wing gangs i just mentioned have since been charged by the department of justice with seditious conspiracy for their role in plotting -- in a quite granular fashion -- the attack on the capitol.
12:06 am
cassidy hutchinson yesterday also testify that both far-right gangs, who have been accused of seditious conspiracy, kept coming up around rudy giuliani in the days before the attack. >> i recall hearing the word oath keeper and hearing the word cowboys closer to the planning of the january 6th rally, when mr. giuliani would be around. >> okay, that's interesting. again, maybe her recollection is imperfect. but that's a pretty notable piece of information. again, those groups, according to cassidy hutchinson's sworn testimony, they were being discussed in the west wing of the white house. that's where she was. not in the [inaudible] . but that's not all, perhaps the most shocking bit of testimony the committee played yesterday was the relative revelation from cassidy hutchinson that donald trump wanted to do away with the magnetometers, the metal detectors, that screen for weapons at his lips rally that morning. >> i was in the vicinity of a
12:07 am
conversation where i heard the president say something to the effect of, i don't effing care that they have weapons. they are not here to hurt me. take the effing mags away. >> trump knew the crowd was angry. he knew they were spoiling for a fight. those around trump were worried about the potential for violence and warned him about it, warned about the presence of the weapons -- i mean, gave him a readout apparently. and donald trump's response was to get rid of the metal detectors because they are not here to hurt me. or they are not here to hurt me. i don't know which one. he wanted his angry mob -- again, to be filled with people carrying weapons. and then march to the capitol and knowing that, he took the stage at the ellipse and order that armed crowd to march to the capitol and said he would go with them. and that wasn't just trump be assessing. that wasn't trump saying, like, you guys go ahead, i will be there with you. no, no, no.
12:08 am
no, no, no. that's what we learned yesterday. he actually wanted to be with them. he was going to go with them. he apparently became furious when he was told he could not join the mob, sacking the capitol. >> when the president got in the [inaudible] he was under the impression from mr. meadows that the off-the-record movement to the capitol was still possible and likely to happen but that [inaudible] had more information. as the president had gotten into the vehicle with bobby he thought that they were going up to the capitol end when bobby had relayed to him, we are not, we don't have the assets to do it, it's not secure, we are going back to the west wing, the president had very strong, a very angry response to that. tony described him as being irate. the president said something to the effect of, i am the effing president, take me up to the capitol now, to which bobby responded, sir, we have to go
12:09 am
back to the west wing. >> so after knowing there is an armed mob going to the capitol, trump wanted to lead the armed mob into the capitol as, essentially, the fascist point of the spear, with his security detail and the armed mob around him, and the proud boys and the oath keepers, to parked the seas and brees passed the metropolitan police, who are getting their brains bashed in by the crowd, one imagines, and the capitol police, being concussed -- and reason to sack the capitol, to occupy the capitol, to take it over. personally, i am the leader now. this is what we are left to understand. the president of the united states wanted to do -- not some lawsuit, not some lies through some cut out, not getting some lawyer to run an errand. this is trump himself. congressman adam schiff is a
12:10 am
democrat of california. he sits on the january 6th committee. he was the lead impeachment manager during the first impeachment of donald trump. and congressman, let me start just on that. what are we to believe? what are we to understand from the evidence your committee has introduced about what donald trump's plan was to do? when he led the armed mob into the halls of the u.s. capitol? >> it was to succeed where he had failed through any other means, and that was to stop the transfer of power, to overturn the election, to cling to his office. and chris, i think you put your finger on what was most important, in my view, in the testimony yesterday. and that is, when the president was told this crowd was armed, they wouldn't go through the magnetometers because, if they did, they would have the
12:11 am
weapons taken away, the president's response wasn't good, we don't want them to have weapons, the president's response was, take the magnetometers down. he wanted them to be able to march with him to the capitol armed. and so his knowledge, his intent, i think, we got the most direct view of that in the testimony is today. the fact that when that attack was going on, having been frustrated in his efforts to accompany this armed mob, he is sitting in the safety of the white house, he is asked over and over to do something about it. but he won't do anything about it because he thinks that pence deserves this. that is a pretty telling compelling narrative provided by this witness, of a president who, when all else fails, was prepared to use this violent mob to achieve his ends.
12:12 am
>> we got some news about pat cippellone -- going to ask you about in a second, but one more follow-up on that -- which is, whether you have updated your understanding? whether you're a mental model of what happened that day has changed or evolved as this -- as you and the committee have learned more and more? >> yes. and i certainly suspected that trump was aware of the fact that the crowd was armed and dangerous. and there was evidence to indicate that. but her testimony was the first that he was directly told about this and his response was take away the method of disarming these people. take away the magnetometers. and to me, that tells the whole story of where he was coming from under that day and what he was prepared to do. so, yes, i think our understanding continues to improve.
12:13 am
and it's an astounding thing, chris, we are a year and a half from these events. up until yesterday, the public wasn't aware that the president knew, the crowd, the mob, was armed. and he wanted them to be able to march on the capitol armed. imagine how the capitol police, who were injured over 140 of, thing thttack, knowing that the commander in chief -- who is supposed to be protecting them and our institutions -- was one of that mob, to be able to go to the capitol. armed. it really is astounding. >> i mention former white house counsel pat cipollone. the committee has made direct appeals to him, on screen, before the mix, to come talk to him. i understand he had an off the record, i think, conversation with the committee. [inaudible] there's a subpoena out for him
12:14 am
today. why now? why is pat cipollone being subpoenaed? >> as we've learned more and more, we have learned of his role in the run up to january 6th on january 6th. his fear that there was going to be blood on the hands of the white house chief of staff, if he didn't do something, that if the president accompanied this mob to the capitol, they would be charged with every crime on the books, or something along those lines. so, his knowledge of the propensity for violence that day, he is knowledge that the president and others may be breaking the law that day, i think, is very important. and he ought to show just a small portion of the courage that cassidy hutchinson displayed. here she is, at the ripe old age of 26 years old, showing such poise and character and courage. and here he is, in a much more senior position, and able to testify as to what he knows, and to do so observing whatever legitimate claim he might make of privilege, and plainly there are lots of conversations and evidence he can provide that
12:15 am
have no claim of privilege -- here he is, and he needs to come out of hiding. he needs to do his patriotic duty. >> final question for you. it's been a very weird aftermath to cassidy hutchinson 's testimony, in so far as various people have attempted to dispute details of her testimony, often either anonymously or through spokespeople issuing statements. some of these people have testified before your committee. some have not. there is obviously a profound asymmetry between an individual who testifies under penalty of perjury in sworn testimony, and someone anonymously saying something to someone. what do you make of those efforts?
12:16 am
do you have concerns about the veracity of what we heard yesterday? >> no. i have great confidence in cassidy hutchinson as a very, very credible, reliable witness. she told us what she knew. she told us the extent of what she knew, she told us when she did not know things. i spent almost six years as a prosecutor. i don't with a lot of witnesses. and sometimes you can tell the most about their credibility by what they tell you they can't tell you. that, is what they don't know. all you can ask from them is to tell you the truth, to tell you when they were a firsthand observer and when they got something secondhand. and she did all that. and some of these attacks on her, someone anonymous, sleazy rumor campaigns, all the rest of that, are -- by people that don't have the same courage she does, that don't have the same respect for their oath of office -- the idea that mark meadows, for example, would dispute anything that she has to say in hiding from the committee, unwilling
12:17 am
to come forward, willing to write about these things in a book when he has not, of course, under oath, is just appalling. so, i have nothing but respect for her and nothing but confidence in what she had to say. >> i'm surprised meadows is able to tear him self away from scrolling through his phone to be able to hear her testimony, to be honest. congressman adam schiff, thank you for your time, appreciate it. >> thank you. >> like i, said i didn't expect to be surprised by anything in this hearings. but yesterday's testimony from cassidy hutchinson was backed with brand-new details about what was happening behind the scenes while the attack at the capitol wasn't folding, and what i found to be some of the biggest revelations just ahead.
12:18 am
(woman) oh. oh! hi there. you're jonathan, right? the 995 plan! yes, from colonial penn. your 995 plan fits my budget just right. excuse me? aren't you jonathan from tv, that 995 plan? yes, from colonial penn. i love your lifetime rate lock.
12:19 am
that's what sold me. she thinks you're jonathan, with the 995 plan. -are you? -yes, from colonial penn. we were concerned we couldn't get coverage, but it was easy with the 995 plan. -thank you. -you're welcome. i'm jonathan for colonial penn life insurance company. this guaranteed acceptance whole life insurance plan is our #1 most popular plan. it's loaded with guarantees. if you're age 50 to 85, $9.95 a month buys whole life insurance with guaranteed acceptance. you cannot be turned down for any health reason. there are no health questions and no medical exam. and here's another guarantee you can count on: guaranteed lifetime coverage. your insurance can never be cancelled. just pay your premiums. guaranteed lifetime rate lock. your rate can never increase. pardon me, i'm curious. how can i learn more about this popular 995 plan? it's easy. just call the toll-free number for free information.
12:20 am
(soft music) ♪
12:21 am
♪ ♪ how's he still playin'? aspercreme arthritis. full prescription-strength. reduces inflammation. we already knew that the don't touch my piano. kick pain in the aspercreme.
12:22 am
fascist trump mob wanted to -- capitol on january 6th. now we are learning that the ex-president wanted to join the mob on their way to the capitol. here's a bit of sound of yesterday hearing from chief of staff mark meadows aid cassidy hutchinson where she recount stories on what she heard when what trump did when he realized that she he could not go to the capitol. -- trump's deputy chief of staff for operations. >> once the president hadn't gotten into the vehicle with bobby, he thought that they were going up to the capitol and when bobby had relayed to him, we are not, we don't have the assets to do it, it's not secure, we are going back to the west wing, the president
12:23 am
had very strong, very angry response to that. tony described him as being irate. the president said something to the effect of, i am the effing president, take me up to the capitol now, to which bobby responded, sir, we have to go back to the west wing. the president reached up towards the front of the vehicle, to grab at the steering wheel. mr. angela grabbed his arm and said, sir, you need to take your hand off the steering wheel. we are going back to the west wing, we are not go into the capitol. >> as i mentioned, there has been some cowardly anonymous disputations of the details there, which, i don't know -- i wasn't there -- neither was cassidy hutchinson, she's very forthcoming on that. and there's been spokespeople saying, so-and-so is prepared
12:24 am
to testify -- again, people should testify and say what happened. until they do, this is the story that we have. if they want to dispute it, they should come forward. right, do what cassidy hutchinson did. what is clear, though, and again there's disputation of the detail, they are, like, where did he touch him? the ex president wanted to be at the capitol, he wanted to go to the capitol, he wanted to be the head of the violent, fascist mob invading the capitol. he was their leader, he wanted to march alongside them, to lead them. i truly did not think i was capable of being surprised by any detailed details because there was a terrible, enjoy as today. joining me now is harry litman who, served as deputy assistant attorney general for the western district of pennsylvania. harry, what was striking to me about the testimony yesterday -- and i think it has real salience both politically and legally -- is how direct all this was -- how trump directing these
12:25 am
things, trump there and present. and not through cutouts, and not through arm's length kind of stuff, that the testimony we got is about trump, where people very close to trump answering to him like his chief of staff, or his lawyer rudy giuliani, and that to me felt like a new level -- that we are just closer to this that we have ever been before. what did you think? >> we are more than closer. we are at a bull's-eye and that's a different place, chris. i think what you say and why you work [inaudible] is exactly right and allow me to try to put a legal grout gloss on this. so, a crime is the combination of a bad act and a guilty intent. and today, just as you are saying, we were talking about the delay or hindrance in the january 6th hearing itself. and wondering about trump's guilty intent vis-à-vis that act. always seemed clear to me he had guilty intent. by now that's been blown out of the water for two reasons by cassidy hitch insulin cassidy hutchinson. first, and most importantly, we are not talking about hindrance of the proceeding. we are talking about violence and force. and under the federal code,
12:26 am
that means we are expressly in seditious conspiracy and inciting a riot land. that's precisely the element that distinguishes it. that's for starters. what about this guilty intent? you said at the top maybe it is still a little murky? it is not the slightest bit murky and for the reasons you say. not only does he find out -- or at least meadows and others -- know in advance, giuliani, january 3rd. it still doesn't matter because we know for a fact -- and that's without regard, as you say, to the sort of sideshow of, did he grab the wheel and the clavicle or not? he knows they are armed, he wants to lead them. he is not simply accepting, he wants to foment and be this odd, napoleonic figure, sweeping in with violent thugs in the weird horns, et cetera, behind him. that is seditious conspiracy. that is inciting a riot, as the find in the federal code. >> yep. >> we are in a completely
12:27 am
different territory for exactly the reason that you pointed out at the top of the show. >> yeah. and it's interesting because, again, i never want to get out too far ahead of this and we talked about this before and i think we will talk about it later in the show -- there's a whole bunch of institutional questions about this and legal questions about the evidence. but it was interesting, because you are not alone, and eli honig, who has been a [inaudible] former federal prosecutor, told npr that requesting the mags would build prosecutable case against donald trump. i have seen a lot of people who are again, not necessarily gunslingers, and not necessarily people who are chomping at the bit to say that the evidence yesterday moved things in that direction. >> they more then moved them. they pole vaulted them. i'm been the same. i've been relatively conservative. i've only recently come to the view that the worst thing next to prosecuting him is not prosecuting him. but i know what that table is
12:28 am
going to be like -- and i've been there when the decision is made and garland presides. and i think it is clear that day responsible, respected voice is going to say, how can we not do this? it doesn't mean it carries the day, but without a doubt the proof will be so clear and the crime that is proven will be so grave and serious that the consequences of staying back we will be very apparent to merrick garland and everybody at that table, as being brave for democracy in and of itself, to counterbalance what will remain, as you say, the wealthier of considerations that make a prosecution of a former president pretty gnarly. >> yeah. that's well said. we are going to dive into that even more, ahead, with some other folks, like yourself, with some experience adjacent to this. no one has experience prosecute an ex-president. it never. happened harry litman, thank you for your time tonight. >> thank you, chris.
12:29 am
>> so, the committee has been meticulously working to show that everyone involved in this coup plot knew what they were trying to do was criminal. or at least feared that. and there is a real question about, as harry said -- okay, what is the department of justice doing with that information? and there are real, unmistakable signs of life and action from the doj. and that's ahead.
12:30 am
12:31 am
12:32 am
12:33 am
12:34 am
when it comes to the january 6th attack on the capitol, it's been obvious at a certain level that all the people surrounding donald trump had to have known that what they were doing was likely, or at the very least, possibly, criminal. and so far the committee has done an incredible job of demonstrating a consciousness of guilt. >> now i'm going to give you the best free legal advice you are ever getting in your life. get a great effing criminal defense lawyer, you are going to need it. then i hung up on him. >> we will wear of any members of congress seeking pardons? >> mr. gates and mr.. gross >> eastman's emails stated, quote, i've decided i should be on the pardon list, if that is still in the works. >> did really giuliani ever suggest that he was interested in receiving a presidential pardon related to january 6th. ? >> he did. >> mr. biggs did.
12:35 am
mr. jordan talk about congressional pardons but he never asked me for one. >> did white house chief of staff mark meadows every indicate that he was interested in receiving a presidential pardon related to january 6th? >> mr. meadows did seek that pardon, yes, ma'am. >> mr. gohmert asked for one as well. mr. perry asked for a pardon as well -- i'm sorry. >> mr. cipollone said something to the effect of, please make sure we don't go up to the capitol, keep in touch with me, cassidy, we are going to get charged with every crime imaginable if we make that movement happen. >> the committee has introduced a body of evidence that lays out how aware people around trump were that what they were doing was likely criminal. lawyers warned them, saying the administration would get charged with every crime imaginable, afterwards, the people involved sought pardons. there is no plausible deniability left. trump world is making all the criminal referrals you could
12:36 am
want against themselves. so what is the department justice do about that? what is merrick garland do about that? we have two incredible guess who both served in the justice department and who understand almost better than anyone to legal and criminal ramifications that could come from these earrings. they have a lot to say. that's next.
12:37 am
12:38 am
12:39 am
12:40 am
12:41 am
>> for a while, not knowing his career, would basically sooner rather die than be the person to prosecute the ex president of the united states, the first person to do that. been operating under the assumption that it is not going to happen. that's until last, week when we learned that federal investigators searched the home of jeffrey clark, a man who was essential to the plot to use the doj to overturn the election. law enforcement officials raided his house just before seven in the morning, according to one of his colleagues they put him in the streets in his pajamas and took his electronic vices. there are different ways that you can execute search warrants, but executing a search that includes putting a doj in player on the street in their p.j.'s, again it happens every day in america, not isolated those types of folks. feels like the department of justice is playing hardball. former special agent in the fbi counterintelligence agent. editor of the national security
12:42 am
and civil rights form of just security. chuck rosenberg is a former u.s. attorney and former senior fbi official. they both join me now. great to have you both, i know that both of you have a lot of institutional knowledge in this. so maybe let us first start with the state of things legally as we know from what is publicly available and the degree to with that has changed. i'll start with, you the degree to which along the lines of what harry lippman another said, we are in somewhat new territory in terms of what the facts and the law are as we know the. >> yes, chris thank you for having me on. i think it's important to note that the january 6th committee and the department of justice even though working in parallel, actually have different goals. the department of justice won't seek legal accountability. they need to see whether
12:43 am
criminal law has been violated and whether there is evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. the january six committee is concerned with public accountability. they don't have to be concerned with things like admissibility or every evidentiary concerns. and they don't need to work methodically, then go straight to the top. there can be a disconnect between thend must be ready to indict tomorrow. and where the department of justice might actually be in their somewhat plotting investigation. and i totally get that that can be incredibly frustrating, because on top of that, they are completely silent. so i think that the department of justice is probably not as far along as what we imagine they would be given the evidence coming from the committee. and that is because they are working on different timelines and standards. >> that's a really good caution, a really good point. even those evidentiary questions, like what you can and cannot admit. chuck, what is your feeling
12:44 am
about all of this? >> i think asha's point about the committee doing a top-down investigation is an important one and one worth perhaps explaining a bit more. at the justice department, and i was a prosecutor for a long time chris, you work cases on the bottom up and so you try to, if you can induce the evidence and constant stain a conviction, you get people to cooperate. they convict and cooperate and the move up the pyramid. and the committee and i understand this seems to be focused at the top of the pyramid. and so it is a very different orientation. also, i think we have to be extraordinarily careful because let's say that the committee has interviewed 1000 people and they've spent four hours with each one. i wasn't a math major, but 1000 times four is 4000. we've so far heard about ten or 12 hours of testimony and they may have 4000 hours worth of depositions. it's like me reading the first
12:45 am
three pages of the war and peace and then writing a book reports. not sign ever did that in college, but we don't yet know a fraction of what the committee has we know almost nothing and what the department of justice as and so i think i just caution to be patient and to be mindful of these different paradigms is really important. >> let's talk then about the development of eastman and clark. because that does seem to me significant. anytime someone ends up searched by the feds, whether it's an elected official back when i was in chicago covering local politics, happen about every other week with an altar man. you know, that means that there is something there. this is not starting from square one. so what is your judgment again from what we know publicly on the significance of the eastman and clark searches? >> yeah chris, i would say that there is good news and then there is inconclusive news. i think that the good news is
12:46 am
look, they do have people who are some of the major players and architects of this coup in their sights. specifically jeffrey clark who was ready to weaponize the justice department and become a part of executing this fraudulent scheme. the inconclusive piece is that this investigation is coming out of the office of inspector general. this is the internal watchdog of the justice department and because jeffrey clark is an employee, the investigated him and it looks like, again good news, that it has turned into a criminal investigation and that the eastman search warrant appears to be connected to that. i would be interested to know what chuck thinks of this. it seems to me that it cannot come to a lot of conclusions, because they have a head start on that piece of the investigation and what that means in terms of where they are for the other players. i don't know that we
12:47 am
necessarily know along where they are for roger stone for example or rudy giuliani, or even donald trump though i suspect that they will all intersect at some point,. >> what do you think chuck? >> i'm not trying to lead myself wiggle room with this answer, but i will tell you this, you are a lawyer it's okay. >> no, i was a prosecutor, big difference chris. let me tell you what i know and when i don't know. with a search warrant, that means agents the officer of the inspector general, could be the fbi or something else. goes to a federal judge and asked to review and sign a warrant, which attests to the fact that they have probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that they are going to find evidence of that crime in the place that they're going to search. mr. clark's house, or mr. eastman's phone and that is not a good thing if you are clark or eastman. never a good thing chris to have the fbi or somebody knock on your door and take your stuff. now, the wiggle room part of
12:48 am
it. it does not mean that they're going to be charged with a crime. the many who are searched by a search warrant are charged with a crime. does not mean that, it's not dispositive. and so has oshawa has cautioned earlier, we need to be patient, patience is hard and we only know a tiny fraction of what the department of justice is doing right now. but there is a clear delineation of what they were doing, all the first 800 cages were tied to the violence with we see them doing now, where they are moving to the electoral vote fraud. it is an important delineation. >> i think that step is really where things start to get much closer to the president. they open up a whole bunch of really profound, to me, institutional questions, kind of democratic theory questions about how does a self governing rule of law country go about this kind of thing. other countries have done it, of course, in fact, i
12:49 am
would love to continue that conversation as this goes forward in the future with both of you. asha rangappa and chuck rosenberg, it was very enlightening, thank you both. when we come back, how the attempted insurrection by donald trump has followed a pre-existing script in american history. the warning signs we cannot ignore. the warning signs w cannot ignore.
12:50 am
i'm jonathan lawson here to tell you about life insurance through the colonial penn program. if you're age 50 to 85, and looking to buy life insurance on a fixed budget, remember the three ps. what are the three ps? the three ps of life insurance on a fixed budget are price, price, and price. a price you can afford, a price that can't increase, and a price that fits your budget. i'm 54, what's my price? you can get coverage for $9.95 a month. i'm 65 and take medications. what's my price?
12:51 am
also $9.95 a month. i just turned 80, what's my price? $9.95 a month for you too. if you're age 50 to 85, call now about the #1 most popular whole life insurance plan available through the colonial penn program. it has an affordable rate starting at $9.95 a month. no medical exam, no health questions. your acceptance is guaranteed. and this plan has a guaranteed lifetime rate lock so your rate can never go up for any reason. so call now for free information and you'll also get this free beneficiary planner. and it's yours free just for calling. so call now for free information. why choose proven quality sleep from the sleep number 360 smart bed? because it can gently raise your partner's head to help relieve snoring. ah. that's better. and can help you get almost 30 minutes more restful sleep per night.
12:52 am
the queen sleep number 360 c2 smart bed is only $899. plus free home delivery when you add a base. ends monday. ♪ ♪ how's he still playin'? aspercreme arthritis.
12:53 am
full prescription-strength. reduces inflammation. don't touch my piano. kick pain in the aspercreme.
12:54 am
>> we tend to think about january 6th as unprecedented because in many ways it was. we had never seen the capitol ransacked by insurrectionists. we never had a coup at the federal level. which is why watching it in realtime felt so surreal. like, is this actually happening? but as we learn more about what it was, essentially a violent right-wing mob refusing to accept defeat at the ballot box, and storming the seat of government to take it over by force, it is clear this is actually a pre-existing script in american political life. it is not when we are taught in school, but this blueprint has existed in this very way, particularly in the south and the years after the civil war. immediately after the war ended, of course, southern states were under federal occupation. former slave people were freed given the right to vote. and these places and the south began to see a new form of multi racial coalition politics. black, white, fusion elected
12:55 am
governments throughout the south, from the municipal level all the way on up. and those governments were opposed by the dead and reactionary white racist guard. and what happened in those years, again, and again, and again, is the multi racial party of that time, the republican party, with white and black voters, they were in power, and the democrats would say elections were stolen. that there was fraud. after an election, they would assemble armed mobs to march on local government in order to rest the power back into their control. and it was fully understood at the time that that is what happened. one newspaper, 1874, quote, the condition of the south it's by no means reassuring. this of course is in a republican paper. there is an evident determination in several of the states to intimidate black voters and by the process of intimidation to secure a monopoly of political power of the whites. that story around two days after one of the most infamous examples. it was called the battle of liberty plays, that happened in
12:56 am
new orleans in 1870, for again this is primary construction. the south is still under federal role occupation. the details are going to sound familiar. there was an election, there were accusations of voter fraud by the reactionary party who then turned to calls for street action. here is one such call. printed in the local paper. it called on people to amass and the streets saying quote, you have been these silent but indignant sufferers of outrage after abridged heaped upon you by a government. a white supremacist militia movement responded to that call, gathering to overturn the state government, and put the losing candidate in office. and the new orleans metropolitan police were put on a war footing because it was believed that the white wing club -- we are well armed determined to make a stand. these were the proud boys of their time. and the police of new orleans were right to be
12:57 am
worried because low and behold, later today, quote, the various companies of the white league armed with every variety of weapon appeared in the streets taking positions. they attacked the police, multiple police officers were killed. the following day, the old officials from the republican party, right? the multi racial party, they had been deposed, and the state house seized by the way supremacist party. and the pro coup paper celebrated the victory with language, that again, it's going to sound very familiar. noting the quote doesn't gallant lives sacrificed on the altar of liberty the blood of gentleman and patriots, and i quote, louisiana throughout its borders today is free. eventually it took federal troops to restore order as so often happened. but it was a huge deal at the time.
12:58 am
chronicles and newspapers from new york. it happened just a year after -- which was also in louisiana, where they captured a federal courthouse, defended by an all-black militia, and murdered dozens of african americans. and atrocities like that one kept happening, armed white supremacists, mobs, trying to overturn throw governments all the way through the later half of the 19th century. they actually succeeded in 1898 in north carolina. this one is less, famous less well-known. but the mob took to the streets shooting and killing an untold number of black citizens. what their aim was was that they physically occupy the local government. they took over the local government and they expelled the black politicians and they put unelected white men into place in the city government instead. and you go back to those moments in american history, and it really helps to clarify what we saw on january 6th. the seditious
12:59 am
tradition in american life. and the very real warning sense of what was actually happening, cnn documented, by people at the time. remember, those tactics, the armed violence and the coup, the attempt to overturn an elected government like in wilmington, it worked overtime. it worked. and the free black people in the south, many of those jurisdictions, did not see their freedom, their true democratic rights again for another 80 years. those are the states. that is what happens if the mob is allowed to rule without repercussions. that is all in on this wednesday night, msnbc prime starts now with ali velshi, good evening ali. >> very thoughtful chris, thank you for that, enjoy the rest tonight, we will see you tomorrow. thanks for joining us at this. are willing to bet you felt this way before, throughout the entire trump presidency we all
1:00 am
grew a customs to the ones that we are in right now. a bombshell revelations about the presidents behavior. and then the wondering. will this be it. will this be the thing that finally jolts jolts some of tru supporters enough that they change their views of him? will this be the thing that convinces certain people that he is lawless and dangerous and that he has an entire political party and its infrastructure behind him? of course, the answer was generally no. there will never be a bridge too far for donald trump an epiphany moment for the vast majority of his supporters, but for some, at least on an individual level, perhaps there is, and perhaps this is it. for cassidy hutchinson, the young unflappable white house staffer who testified before the january 6th investigation yesterday, the events


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on