Updated
Summary
“The Washington Post” reports that the Justice Department is investigation Trump`s actions in January 6 criminal probe. Interview with Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA).
Transcript
CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST: All right. That is ALL IN on this Tuesday night. I know my own show`s name.
“MSNBC PRIME” starts right now with Mehdi Hasan.
Good evening, Mehdi.
MEHDI HASAN, MSNBC HOST: Chris, It`s “ALL IN”. I mean, I remember think of it every day, come on, you can`t forget those words. So memorable.
Thank you so much. Have a great rest of your night.
Thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. We have got breaking news to get to tonight. “The Washington Post” just out with his brand-new reporting. Justice Department investigating Trump`s actions in January 6 criminal probe. We`ll get the details from Carol Leonnig, one of the reporters who broke that story an expert legal guidance on what it all means.
But, first, let`s remember how we got here. Today, in Washington for only the second time, a federal judge sentenced a January 6th rioter to more than five years in prison. 63 months, it is tied for the longest sentence ever imposed on a participant in the Capitol attack. And it`s not hard to see.
In screenshots take it from officers body cams in January 6, this guy is seen swinging a pole out of police officers so hard it snaps into on the officers riot shield. So the new guy finds another poll and start swinging that one at officers. The officer he hit with the first poll, the one he hit so hard that it stepped into, that was Capitol Police Sergeant Aquilino Gonell. Sergeant Gonell gave emotional testimony about the horror that day to the January 6 investigation last year.
And today, he sent his at that rioters hearing, saying he suffered mental and physical injuries from the attack that forced him to leave the police force. After the guy with the poles was arrested, he said he attacked the police officers that day because he believed Donald Trump`s lies about the stolen election. After all, the then president sent a mob to the Capitol to fight like hell. That was the last time that President Trump Donald Trump gave a big speech in Washington, D.C., the speech where he riled a mob of his supporters, who he knew they were armed and sent them to the Capitol.
And then he sat by and watch TV for hours, while they stormed the place and attacked police officers, and even had his advisors and his own family members begged him to do something to stop it.
So, no matter what, it was galling to learn that the Donald Trump would be returning to Washington, D.C. today to give the speech just a mile and a half from a capital. It is maddening enough to think that he could just show`s face in the capital. But it was particularly galling to hear him say this in the speech.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT: Police officers are heroes performing a great public service at great public risk. We must uphold our duty to plucked protect our police officers, our great police officers. They have to become our heroes. They are mine.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HASAN: Police officers need to become our heroes, they are mine, says the man who routinely described the January 6th rioters as great, persecuted patriots, who routinely said he will pardon the January 6 attackers who injured nearly 150 police officers, smashing them with polls, spraying them with chemicals, and crashing them in doorways.
And in almost goes without saying that at today`s speech, Trump once again repeated the lie that fueled on that violence, that the 2020 election was stolen from him. But also today in Washington as Donald Trump was back into giving his first D.C. speech since January the 6th, we heard from the man who is in charge of prosecuting the more than 850 people charged in connection with January 6th and may possibly at some point think possibly call prosecuting Donald Trump himself.
Attorney General Merrick Garland sat down with an exclusive interview with NBC`s Lester Holt.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LESTER HOLT, NBC NEWS ANCHOR: You said in no uncertain terms the other day that no one is above the law. That said, the indictment of a former president, perhaps a candidate for president would arguably tear the country apart.
Is that your concern as you make your decision down the road here? Do you have to think about things like that?
MERRICK GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL: We pursue justice without fear or favor. We intend to hold everyone, anyone who was criminally responsible for events surrounding January 6th or any attempt to interfere with the lawful transfer of power from one administration to another accountable. That`s what we do. We don`t pay any attention to other issues with respect to that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:05:05]
HASAN: Well, on the heels of those comments from the attorney general, we have brand-new reporting tonight that suggests the Justice Department investigation may indeed be heating up. This is just out tonight from “The Washington Post”. Quote: Justice Department investigating Trump`s action in January 6th criminal probe. Quote, Prosecutors who were questioning witnesses before a grand jury including two top aides to Vice President Mike Pence have asked in recent days about conversations with Trump, his lawyers and others in the circle who sought to substitute Trump allies from certified electors in certain states that Joe Biden won.
The prosecutors have asked hours of details questions about conversations Trump had in December 2020 and January 2021. His pressure campaign on Pence to overturn the election, and when instructions it Trump gave his lawyers about sending fake electors back to the states. Some of these questions focused directly on the extent of Trump`s involvement in the fake elector efforts.
In addition, Justice Department investigators in April received phone records of key administrators and aids in the Trump administration including his former chief of staff Mark Meadows. The degree of prosecutors` interest in Trump`s actions has not been previously reported, nor has the review of senior Trump aides` phone records.
Look, this is a major escalation when we depart we know about the Justice Department`s investigation and just the latest sign that that investigation may finally gaining steam. Last month, federal agents in multiple states served grand jury subpoenas and executed search warrants related to the fake elector scheme. That included searchers of two key players in that scheme, Trump lawyer John Eastman and Trump Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark.
Last week, two top aides to former Vice President Mike Pence testified to a federal grand jury, the two highest ranking former White House officials known to have cooperated with federal prosecutors. And just today, on top of that blockbuster reporting from the first, we have this new reporting from “The New York Times” which obtained some truly damning emails among those Trump campaign officials relating to that fake elector scheme.
for joining us this hour we have got breaking news to get to tonight the Washington Post just out with this brand new reporting justice department investigating Trump`s actions in January th criminal probe we will get details from carol lennig one of the reporters who broke that story and expert legal guidance on what it all means but first let`s remember how we got here today in Washington for only the second time a federal judge sentenced a January sixth rioter to more than five years in prison at months it is tied for the longest sentence ever imposed on a participant in the capital attack and it`s not hard to see why in screenshots taken from officer body cams on January the th this guy is seen swinging a pole at a police officer so hard it snaps in two on the officer`s riot shield so then the guy goes and finds another pole and starts swinging that one at offices the officer he hit with the first pole the one he hit so hard the pole snapped in two that was capital police sergeant aquilino gunnell sergeant gunnell gave emotional testimony about the horror of that day to the January th investigation last year and today he testified at that rioters sentencing hearing saying he suffered physical and mental injuries from the attack that forced him to leave the police force after the guy with the polls was arrested he said he attacked the police officers that day because he believed Donald Trump`s lies about the stolen election and after all the then president sent a mob to the Capitol to fight like hell that was the last time Donald Trump gave a big speech in Washington dc the speech where he riled up a mob of his supporters who he knew were armed and sent them to the Capitol and he then sat by and watched TV for hours while they stormed the place and attacked police officers even as his advisers and his own family members begged him to do something to help so no matter what it was galling to learn that Donald Trump would be returning to Washington dc today to give a speech just a mile and a half from the Capitol it is maddening to think he can even show his face in our nation`s capital ever again but it was particularly galling to hear him use that speech to say this police officers are heroes performing a great public service at great personal risk we must uphold our duty to protect our police officers our great police officers they have to become our heroes they are mine police officers need to become our heroes they are mine says the man who routinely describes the January six rioters as great persecuted patriots who routinely says that he will pardon the January th attackers who injured nearly police officers smashing them with poles spraying them with chemicals crushing them in doorways and it almost goes without saying that at today`s speech Trump once again repeated the lie that fueled all that violence that the election was stolen from him but also today in Washington as Donald Trump was back in town giving his first dc speech since January the th we heard from the man who is in charge of prosecuting the more than people charged in connection with January the th and may possibly at some point think about prosecuting Donald Trump himself attorney general merrick garland sat down for an exclusive interview with NBC`s lester holt you said in no uncertain terms the other day that no one is above the law that said the indictment of a former president of perhaps candidate for president would arguably tear the country apart is that your concern as you make your decision down the road here do you have to think about things like that look we pursue justice without fear or favor we intend to hold everyone anyone who was criminally responsible for events surrounding January for any attempt to interfere with the lawful transfer of power from one administration to another accountable that`s what we do we don`t pay any attention to other issues with respect to that well on the heels of those comments from the attorney general we have brand new reporting tonight that suggests the justice department investigation may indeed be heating up this is just out tonight from the Washington Post quote justice department investigating Trump`s actions in January the sixth criminal probe quote prosecutors who are questioning witnesses before a grand jury including two top aides to vice president Mike Pence have asked in recent days about conversations with Trump his lawyers and others in his inner circle who sought to substitute Trump allies for certified electors from some states Joe biden won the prosecutors have asked hours of detailed questions about meetings Trump led in december and January his pressure campaign on pence to overturn the election and what instructions Trump gave his lawyers and advisers about fake electors and sending electors back to the states some of the questions focused directly on the extent of Trump`s involvement in the fake elector effort in addition justice department investigators in april received phone records of key officials and aides in the Trump administration including his former chief of staff mark meadows the degree of prosecutors interest in Trump`s actions has not been previously reported nor has the review of senior Trump aides phone records look this is a major escalation in what we understood about the justice department`s investigation and just the latest sign that that investigation may finally be gaining steam last month federal agents in multiple states served grand jury subpoenas and executed search warrants related to the fake electors scheme that included searches of two key players in that scheme Trump lawyer John eastman and Trump justice department official jeffrey clark last week two top aides to former vice president Mike Pence testified to a federal grand jury the two highest-ranking former White House officials known to have Cooperated with federal prosecutors and just today on top of that blockbuster reporting from the post we have this new reporting from the New York Times which obtained some truly damning emails among Trump campaign officials relating to that fake elector scheme.
You`ll recall the way the scheme was supposed to work Republicans in various states that Biden won signed fake and in some cases forged elector certificates for Trump, purporting to be the real and true electors from that state. In other words, claiming that Trump won their state when he did not. Then they sent these fake elector certificates to Washington with the hope that on January 6, 2021, Mike Pence would use them to overturn Biden`s win and hand the election to Trump.
When we talk about this plot, we shorthand it as the fake elector scheme. Now Republicans involved in the plan have maintained that there was nothing problematic or illegal about it, that it was all above board and the electoral certificates were totally legit. But the emails obtained by “The Times” reveal that even the lawyers and Trump campaign officials hatching the scheme referred to the electoral certificates as fake. This is an email to Trump campaign officials from a lawyer helping to organize the pro-Trump electors in Arizona.
Quote: We would just be sending in fake electoral votes to Pence so that someone in Congress can make an objection when they start counting votes and start arguing that the fake votes should count — should be counted. He then followed up with another email, quote: PPS, alternative votes is probably a better term than fake votes, followed by a smiley face emoji.
The emails show that everyone involved was reporting details of their fake elector planning to Trump`s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and in at least one case to Trump`s White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, which once again brings all this activity that is under investigation very, very close to Donald Trump himself, which may help explain why as “The Washington Post” is reporting tonight, the Justice Department`s January investigation is actively looking into Trump`s, Trump`s actions.
Joining us now is Carol Leonnig, investigative reporter at “The Washington Post”, who is the lead byline on this bombshell piece of reporting tonight.
Carol, thanks so much for being here. I`m sure it`s been a very busy day for you.
Your reporting says the DOJ is investigating Trump`s action as part of its criminal probe into the attempt to overturn the election. That`s clearly not something that happens overnight.
Can you walk us through your reporting in terms of how this particular angle to the DOJ investigation has come about?
CAROL LEONNIG, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER, THE WASHINGTON POST: Yes, happy to do so. My colleagues and I learned some really interesting things about that road map of the — what I`d call team Trump investigation. But, you know, as you know very, very well, the Department of Justice began almost on January 7th investigating the attack on the Capitol, starting with the rioters who breached the building, who stormed the Capitol, who assaulted law enforcement officers who broke in essentially. They were a mixture of trespassers and seditious conspiracists according to the Department of Justice.
[21:10:07]
But the criticism of Merrick Garland, our attorney general and also the Department of Justice has been the glacial pace with which it has turned its attention to another potential crime and that is the way in which Donald Trump and his allies appeared at least on their face to be using fraudulent information to block and overturn the election results, to block our wonderful sacred tradition of the peaceful transfer power. What we learned is that, at least starting in early spring, the Department of Justice started to swing its attention fairly forcefully towards Team Trump. We`ve seen a series of subpoenas that have to do with fake electors.
But more recently what we learned in the last few days, last few hours to be fair, is that in April, the Department of Justice obtained, sought and obtained phone records called data logs if you will for a series of Trump aides, allies and senior officials in the White House. Those phone records included the calls back and forth between all sorts of aides to Trump who were with him, on January 6th, people who with him and overhearing what he was saying and taking orders from him after the election until January, and also include his chief of staff Mark Meadows, which is probably the most senior person whose records have been obtained. That`s in April, before any January hearings have taken place.
In the meantime, what we learned is that they are asking most of their questions at least so far about Donald Trump. The questions overwhelmingly are what did Donald Trump tell his lawyers, what did Donald Trump say to you, what did Donald Trump say to Mike Pence. And those are questions asked in the very serious and formal environment of a grand jury — a grand jury that`s preparing as part of a criminal investigation for the possibility of charging people with crimes.
HASAN: So, Carol, in your piece, you described two tracks of investigation in your report — a track leading to potential seditious conspiracy charges and obstruction of an official proceeding, on the one hand, and then another related to fraud regarding the fake elector scheme. Do we know which track the Justice Department has gathered more evidence and information on are they leaning particularly one way or the other can we tell from their questioning?
LEONNIG: You know, there are three different offices burrowing into these specific tracks. I don`t know the answer to your question. I sure wish I did, but I would imagine they`re steaming full steam ahead on all of these tracks, and that, obviously, based on the grand jury witnesses who were brought in the fake electors piece is perhaps further along than any other, and keep in mind that when the Justice Department considers conspiracy — conspiracy can be an agreement between any number of people to try to accomplish some nefarious scheme using fraud, knowingly intentionally defrauding people around them, the public, maybe an executive branch agency using this agreement to try to execute this scheme.
But to be charged with this crime, you don`t have to accomplish it. You just have to have that corrupt agreement. I would add one more thing to your good question, which is our understanding is that this investigation is unusual in that it is looking at the potential crimes that are already obvious from the evidence right in front of our faces, the things people saw on television, the things the president said himself. And that`s an important thing to keep in mind, the crimes that are potentially obvious.
I`ll add one last thing — sorry, no go ahead. You ask.
HASAN: No quick, quick last question we`ve run out of time. I do have to ask this. How much do we know about Merrick Garland`s involvement? Is this something he`s personally overseeing green lighting, and how much do we think the 1/6 committee hearings have ramped all of this up?
LEONNIG: My understanding though I don`t know all of the specifics here, my understanding is he`s briefed regularly on this. You know, he has said over and over again that no one is above the law. They`re going to follow the facts where they lead but there are a lot of people quite concerned about whether or not Merrick Garland is as keen to prosecute what appears to be a crime and worried about the precedent, right?
It is not a small thing to consider prosecuting a former president. It`s not okay ever to prosecute a sitting president, according to several legal memorandum and — but to prosecute a former president is still a very serious matter, one that`s never ever been taken before.
[21:15:12]
So there are people worried about whether or not Merrick Garland wants to be the first person to take that step in history.
HASAN: These are historic times. Carol Leonnig, investigative reporter at the Washington Post thank you so much for taking time out tonight. We appreciate it.
LEONNIG: Honored to be here.
HASAN: Historic. That was the reaction to tonight`s “Washington Post” story from former special counsel at the Department of Defense, co-editor- in-chief of Just Security and NYU law professor Ryan Goodman.
Also this, quote: Mark Meadows has a ton of criminal exposure, DOJ could flip him.
Ryan Goodman joins me now.
Ryan, thanks so much for coming on the show. Let me start with a very important question for our viewers. You are a lawyer. You`re a law professor.
Explain the difference between investigating Donald Trump`s actions as part of a probe into January 6 election and criminally investigating Donald Trump himself.
RYAN GOODMAN, CO-EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, JUST SECURITY: It`s a great question. My best sense is that it`s very difficult for them to be investigating Donald Trump`s actions without him either being a subject or target of the investigation. But it might just be that the reporters are unable to you know nail that one down, especially if they`re talking to folks who are witnesses or lawyers for witnesses coming out of the grand jury, all they`ll be able to say is they asked us a lot of questions about Donald Trump`s actions but they won`t be able to say specifically what was the purpose behind that.
Did the prosecutors think that Donald Trump is just suspicious in his activity and is therefore like a subject of the investigation or have they moved all the way over to saying he is a target, we think he committed crimes and now we`re kind of mounting the case against him.
HASAN: So you call this development historic. You also singled out Mark Meadows` role in this. “The Washington Post” reported that his is one of the phone`s phone records taken for review. You say that the DOJ could flip Meadows in order to get him to turn on Donald Trump. It`s the kind of language we heard during the Mueller investigation in relation to Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn.
What crime would Mark Meadows be charged with or not charged with as part of any kind of deal to get him to flip.
GOODMAN: So I think one of the ways in which he`s very criminally exposed to the very crimes that Carol Leonnig just outlined herself and it`s the same crimes that he worked basically hand in hand with President Trump, he ran point on some of these issues for the fake electors. He ran point on trying to influence Pence as well.
And so, the issue is that he has even greater exposure in some senses than Trump because there`s also evidence in the record from the January 6 committee that Meadows knew Trump had lost. He says that to Bill Barr. Bill Barr says he told me, he said, you know, Trump will come around because he understands that he lost.
Meadows knew that Pence didn`t have the authority to do anything but count the votes. That`s for Marc Short`s testimony before the January 6 committee.
So, Meadows, there`s a lot of criminal exposure for these very core crimes. The Justice Department could say to him, we`ll strike a deal with you. You flip and cooperate with us or we could even provide you immunity, and you cooperate with us and give us everything you know about President Trump, the principal, on all of these schemes.
HASAN: And how significant is it in your view that two Pence aides Marc Short and Greg Jacob have recently testified to a grand jury, the two highest known White House officials to do so?
GOODMAN: I think it`s incredibly significant. It means the investigators going straight into the White House, according to “The Wall Street Journal`s” reporting and corroborated now with “The Washington Post,” the questions the prosecutors are asking and asked specifically of Jacob and Short is about, for example, this January 4th meeting with President Trump.
That`s the meeting with Trump`s only lawyer to tell him that the plan was legal in the meeting concedes. That it is illegal for Pence to carry out the scheme and that`s what the prosecutors are asking these two very senior White House officials about, that`s really means that this — the prosecution and the investigation is very far along and has pierced all the way through into the White House in some of the most important meetings.
HASAN: Quick last question, 30 seconds left. Merrick Garland spoke to Lester Holt earlier today, said, we`re going to prosecute whoever`s responsible. Do you have confidence that he is going to — he will go all the way if the evidence leads them all the way to Trump which it seems to?
GOODMAN: I guess frankly, I don`t. I`m just not sure. I think we have to see what happens especially because this investigation seems to have been so slow rolled at the beginning. And it might well be that the reason that the Justice Department is moving now is because of the January 6 committee.
You know, “The Washington Post” report says that these questions were asked only in the last few days. You know, ask ourselves, why is that? It says you were 18 months after the — after the incidence of January.
[21:20:04]
Why is it now the last few days?
HASAN: It`s a very good point.
Ryan Goodman is a former special counsel at the Department of Defense, current co-editor-in-chief of Just Security.
Ryan, thank you for your time tonight. We appreciate it.
And Ryan just mentioned the role of the 1/6 committee in all of this. Well, up next, here tonight, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, a member of the January 6 Select Committee, she`ll be joining us live to react to this breaking news. Do not go away. We`re just getting started.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:25:08]
HASAN: We are back and continuing to follow tonight`s breaking news. “The Washington Post” reports tonight that the Department of Justice is investigating former President Donald Trump`s actions in the lead up to January 6, as part of a criminal investigation. “The Post” cites two people familiar with the situation who say the investigation is moving on two tracks. The first focus is on seditious conspiracy and conspiracy to obstruct a government proceeding, the kind of charges we`ve already seen brought against some of the right-wing groups involved in the Capitol attack.
The second is focused on potential fraud associated with the false elector scheme or with pressure Trump and his allies allegedly put on the Justice Department and others to falsely claim that the election was rigged and votes were fraudulently cast.
Now, the news of this investigation into the former president comes after six weeks of damning public hearings by the January 6 committee detailing Trump`s role in the plot to overturn the election.
Joining us now is California congresswoman and member of the January 6 committee, Zoe Lofgren.
Congresswoman, thank you for joining us tonight.
First off, of course, I have to get your reaction to this “Washington Post” story that the Justice Department is investigating former President Trump`s actions as part of its January 6th criminal probe.
REP. ZOE LOFGREN (D-CA): Well, I was as surprised as I think you were. Obviously, the Department of Justice doesn`t report into the January 6th committee and all we know at this point is what we read in “The Post” article. However, it`s very clear from the evidence that we have presented, that the former president bears responsibility. He summoned the mob, he knew they were armed. He sent them to the Capitol to disrupt the electoral count.
We know that he was involved in the fake electors scheme, remember when he got on the phone with the Ronna Romney — the Republican chairwoman and then handed it off he wanted her to talk about the fake electors team. So this — he has — his hands are in this and I presume that the Department of Justice will be thorough and defined perhaps even more evidence than we have found.
HASAN: So, some are suggesting including my guest in the previous segment Ryan Goodman, that your committee has helped kind of push the DOJ in this direction, that there`s been action because of the hearings. “The Washington Post” reports though that DOJ investigators received phone records of key officials and aides in the administration, including Mark Meadows in April, which is before the January 6 public hearing started.
What do you make of this development? What role do you think your committee`s had in this investigation so far?
LOFGREN: Well, it`s impossible to know. I do know this that we have played a role in helping wide swaths of the American public have a greater understanding of what happens on January 6, and the days leading up to it. What role it played in the DOJ investigation, it`s not possible for us to know.
HASAN: So, Congresswoman, by my count, at least four of your colleagues on the committee, Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, Adam Schiff, and Elaine Luria, have all publicly suggested in recent days that Trump`s conduct as revealed by the hearings does merit criminal investigation by the Department of Justice. Is your view the same?
LOFGREN: Sure, I think it does merit investigation. Now, whether there`s sufficient evidence to get a conviction, that`s for the prosecutors to weigh. But there`s certainly much that needs to be looked at in great detail by the Department of Justice, no question about that.
HASAN: So one issue that`s been a point of debate and Merrick Garland, the attorney general speaking to Lester Holt earlier today addressed it the idea of a criminal referral from your committee to the DOJ, he said — well, you know it`s up to the committee. It`s not going to affect their investigation. I know some committee members are torn on this.
Have you changed your view on that? Should the committee make a definitive statement at the end of these hearings, at the end of your work on whether there should be a criminal referral to the DOJ based on what you`ve discovered?
LOFGREN: We actually haven`t had a big discussion on that yet, as a committee, as the attorney general mentioned. There`s no real statute that provides for a so-called criminal referral. That doesn`t mean we shouldn`t send a letter and give him our viewpoint.
You know, I don`t know what the committee will decide but I`m confident that it will be after we`ve got a little bit more of the evidence that is still coming in, witnesses still being interviewed and as with everything in this committee, we`ll have a thorough discussion and it`s been a good experience because — you know, we`ve got members who start out in one position, but we listen to each other.
[21:30:05]
We evaluate the evidence. Sometimes we`re persuaded by our colleagues. So there`s been no acrimony. We generally reach a consensus and I imagine we will do so in this case as well.
HASAN: Last quick question, we`re almost out of time, but I have to ask about Secret Service emails. You have said you have quite a few concerns about the Secret Service. On “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” last night, your colleague Jamie Raskin said he didn`t buy for a minute this idea that the Secret Service somehow inadvertently lost those text messages.
I mean, if that`s the case, what does that say about our Secret Service, a pretty key security institution, where they what should people think about their role in the midst of an attempted coup?
LOFGREN: Well, there are a lot of questions and I have some concerns, not only erasing the text messages, but there is information that we`ve asked for, for almost a year that has only recently been produced and in some cases, you know, what we got they knew that we had from another source. They dumped hundreds of thousands of documents on us this morning that we have asked for, for almost a year.
So there are some troubling uh behavior patterns here. I`m also concerned about the actions of the inspector general. He sat on this stuff for months and months and months as well, and now, he has ordered the department to stop the forensic analysis of the phones which we need. We need that to happen.
So there`s a lot of questions here and I hope that we can get answers to all of them.
HASAN: We will have to leave it there. We`re out of time.
California congresswoman, member of the January 6 committee, Zoe Lofgren, thank you so much for your time tonight. I appreciate it.
LOFGREN: Thank you.
HASAN: Republican congressman and Trump acolyte Matt Gaetz went out of his way recently to bash Mike Pence`s chance at a presidential run in 2024. The vice president`s former chief of staff didn`t have any trouble offering up this pretty stinging response.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARC SHORT, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF TO VICE PRES. PENCE: Well, I don`t know if Mike Pence will run for president in 2024, but I don`t think Matt Gaetz is going to have an impact on that. In fact, I`d be surprised if he was still voting. It`s more likely he`ll be in prison for child sex trafficking by 2024. And I am actually surprised the Florida law enforcement still allows him to speak to teenage conferences like that. So I am not too worried about Matt Gaetz.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MEHDI: Ouch!
Now that Pence deputy is the same man that is speaking behind closed doors to DOJ prosecutors. Oh, to be a fly on that wall.
But why the top figures in Pence world don`t seem to have a problem calling out Trump or his minions, Pence himself is taking an entirely different stance. That`s next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:37:34]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: President Trump and yourself are both speaking this week in D.C. and there seems to be a divide between the two of you on your outlook on what the future of the conservative movement might be.
So do you think that this divide extends to the rest of the conservative movement like the general public and what do you think we can do to alleviate it?
MIKE PENCE, FOPRMER VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I will tell you that I couldn`t be more proud of the record of the Trump-Pence administration. So I don`t know that our movement is that divided. I don`t know that the president and I differ on issues. But we may differ on focus.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HASAN: Thank you, sir. May I have another.
That was former Vice President Pence today answering questions during a speech to young conservatives in D.C.
Those comments come less than a month since we heard this damning January testimony from a former top aide to Donald Trump`s chief of staff Mark Meadows about Trump`s reaction to the mob chanting hang Mike Pence that day.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CASSIDY HUTCHINSON, FORMER WHITE HOUSE AIDE: I remember Pat saying something to the effect of Mark, we need to do something more, they`re literally calling for the vice president to be f`ing hung. And Mark had responded something to the effect of, you heard him, Pat. He thinks Mike deserves it. He doesn`t think they`re doing anything wrong.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HASAN: He thinks Mike deserves it. He doesn`t think they`re doing anything wrong.
Since then, we`ve also heard evidence about how members a Pence`s security detail feared for their lives that day and were calling loved ones to say goodbye. Yet, today, there was Mike Pence saying once again, that he and Trump don`t differ on issues, they just differ on focus.
Like how Donald Trump was focused on sitting back and allowing for a violent mob to almost kill Mike Pence and his security detail. And Mike Pence is focused on talking about anything else but that?
Still, while Pence might be doing his best to forget about the events of January the 6, the people who are around him that they don`t have that same luxury. Within the last 24 hours, we learned that to have Mike Pence`s senior advisers, his chief of staff Marc Short, and his legal counsel, Greg Jacob`s, have both now testified before a federal grand jury, as part of the Justice Department`s investigation into January the 6th.
As Mike Pence tries to rehabilitate himself among the dissidents of MAGA land because he has math belief that he could be the GOP nominee in 2024, his former aides are actively cooperating with the federal investigation into 1/6.
[21:40:03]
So what does that mean for Mike Pence himself?
Joining us now is Tom LoBianco, politics reporter at “Yahoo News”. He has covered Mike Pence as time governor in Indiana, and he is author of “Piety & Power: Mike Pence and the Taking of the White House”.
Tom, thanks for being here.
You know more about Mike Pence in a circle the probably any other reporter, do you think those two aides got Mike Pence`s blessing before testifying for the Justice Department grand jury?
TOM LOBIANCO, YAHOO NEWS: Yeah, definitely. It is a tight-knit circle, one of the tightest operations I`ve ever covered. And nothing happens without the boss`s approval.
So my guess is absolutely, nobody has confirmed that, but you know, if you are seeing Marc Short testify, he is the only person closest to Mike Pence than Marc Short is Karen Pence.
HASAN: We all know how Mike feels about Karen Pence.
In your piece about Mike Pence for “Yahoo News”, you quote a Trump advisor keeping tabs on Pence, who said of the former vice president, quote, they are very strategic about when he pops his head up. His path to the White House, if he has won, and I`ll argue he does not, is to do exactly what he has been doing.
What do you think that aide meant that? What is Mike Pence doing right now? And as you have a chance of being the 2024 Republican nominee? I feel like I have more of a chance of being the GOP presidential nominee that Mike Pence.
(LAUGHTER)
LOBIANCO: I mean, the field is open. You might as well. Nobody is as (INAUDIBLE) as anybody.
As it goes with Pence, yeah, he does have a chance. But you know, the tension here for him in particular, how does he address this? And you know, another thing that happened today is that they release the title and the cover of this both as going to be coming out, on November 15th. You know, it`s about the oath of office. So help me God.
It hints at this. And the publisher apparently is counting on him to actually talk about January 6. Yet he himself is not. Again today, he referred to it as, quote, that tragic day. And he has not come to terms with this.
So with that Trump advisor in particular, was referring to, was saying that, Pence keeps on drafting all of this. He keeps on drafting on January 6. He keeps getting the free attention. And the thing is, he hasn`t been forced to talk about January the 6. He hasn`t been for the talk about this.
The closest that we get, and you know thank God for this student questions, the closest that we get are these students going up there saying hey, what is up? And he kind of gives an answer, or something close to that. More than we typically get from him.
HASAN: Yeah. I worry about the fate of our democracy when we get conservative students to be asking the former vice president good questions.
Tom LoBianco, politics reporter at “Yahoo News”, thank you for your time tonight. Thank you for taking my questions.
LOBIANCO: Thank you, Mehdi.
HASAN: Far-right conspiracy theorists Alex Jones`s peddled lies about the Sandy Hook shooting for years, but now a jury will decide how much he owes for the pain he has caused. But that is not all the families of the victims are looking for. That story is next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:47:41]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALEX JONES, CONSPIRACY THEORIST: Listen, if you want to be bamboozled, and lose your First Amendment, and lose your Second Amendment, and lose all that, go ahead. We`re having your rights to a drawback jury decide if you are guilty or innocent stolen from you. This is a kangaroo court, this is a political action, it`s a witch hunt.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HASAN: That was Alex Jones speaking to the media during a break in his trial today. The far-right conspiracy theories is on trial for defamation in Austin, Texas. A jury is considering how much Jones owns in damages to the parents of some of the victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting. You will recall that Jones spent years falsely claiming that the deadly mass shooting of 20 first graders, and six faculty members, was a hoax, staged by the federal government, in an effort to push gun control and take Americans guns away. Thus subject grieving families to threats, and torment, at the hands of conspiracy theorist, who believe that the Sandy Hook families were lying that their own children were not murdered.
Neil Heslin and Scarlett Lewis are the parents of Jesse Lewis who was just six years old when he was murdered. They are expected to testify about the suffering, accusations, and threats they had injured, after Jones suggested that Heslin`s recollection of his son`s death was false.
The parents of Noah Pozner have moved a dozen times after Joneses followers doxxed and posted their addresses and other personal information online. They will testify at a second trial in September in Austin.
Also in September, a third trial against Jones in Connecticut, where the families of eight other victims will testify. Alex Jones has since acknowledged that the shooting did indeed take place, but now he insists that he isn`t responsible for the subsequent trauma of these families have faced.
On his radio, online shows, Jones has claimed that it is simply his First Amendment right to question this tragedy. Quote, it is my right to say it. I can question big PR events like Sandy Hook, where there are major anomalies. And quote, they are using Sandy Hook and they`re using the victims and their families as a way to get rid of free speech and America. That`s the plan.
In fact, when Jones arrived at the courthouse today, he had over his mouth, a piece of tape, that said save the First, along with a plug for his website, of course.
Alex Jones could have to pay the parents of Jesse Lewis up to $150 million in damages, in this trial. His lawyer fears it could put his “Info Wars” business in financial ruin. What a tragedy that would be.
[21:50:03]
And remember, it`s just the first of three cases. We will see how the other two cases and September go for him.
Watch this space.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NED PRICE, STATE DEPT. SPOKESMAN: I can tell you that the secretary is deeply appreciative of the opportunity to meet with Shireen`s family. Not only was she an American citizen, she was a reporter whose fearless pursuit of the truth earned her the profound respect of audiences around the world.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HASAN: That was State Department spokesperson, Ned Price, today as his boss Secretary of State Antony Blinken was meeting with the family of Shireen Abu Akleh, the acclaimed Palestinian American journalist who was killed in May, while covering an Israeli military raid, in the Israeli occupied West Bank. Her death sparked outrage across the glob, in no small part, biggest Palestinian officials and eyewitnesses accuse Israeli military of intentionally shooting Abu Akleh.
[21:55:06]
While the Israeli government at one point claim that a Palestinian shooter killed her, they later said that if the Israeli military, the IDF shot her, it was not intentional. By the way, she was wearing a protective vest with the word “press” on the front in big bold capital letters, when she was shot.
On July the 4th, the U.S. State Department released a statement about the results of the U.S. investigation of her death. They say the Israeli military was quote likely responsible for her death but a badly damaged bullet, quote, prevented a clear conclusion. Finally, the State Department that quote, no reason to believe that this was intentional but rather the result of tragic circumstances.
Abu Akleh`s families took issue with that statement especially considering did number of prominent media outlets and human rights organizations as one of the nine nations, were able to contribute from their investigations that the Israeli military was in fact responsible for Shireen`s killing.
A couple of weeks ago, when President Biden was in the Middle East, Abu Akleh`s family was hoping to get some face time with him, but that never materialized. So they decided to come to Washington, D.C. to meet with his administration in person, he was still unable to meet with President Biden who was still in isolation as he recovers from COVID. But they did meet with the secretary of state.
After that meeting with Secretary Blinken today, Abu Akleh`s niece Lina tweeted quote, Secretary Blinken told us that he has a duty to protect every U.S. citizen. We will hold him to this. Nothing short of a U.S. investigation that leads to real accountability is acceptable, and we won`t stop until no other American or Palestinian family injures the same pain we had.
Joining us now is Lina Abu Akleh, the niece of Palestinian American journalist, Shireen Abu Akleh, who was shot dead while covering Israeli military action in the occupied West Bank.
Lina, thank you for joining us here tonight. We want to have icing of course, we are so sorry for your loss.
How was your meeting about your aunt with Secretary Blinken today? Did you find a protective?
LINA ABU AKLEH, NIECE OF PALESTINIAN AMERICAN JOURNALIST: Thank you so much for having me, Mehdi.
Honestly, it was what we expected. Secretary Blinken reiterated the same talking points, the same points stated in the statement that they released on the Fourth of July. There were no promises, no commitments, other than the fact that they would be more transparent with us, moving forward.
However, at this point, what we are looking for is meeting meaningful action. What we are looking for is accountability. We express our demands and our concerns. And we ask for an investigation by the U.S., administration, and we ask for accountability. I mean, it`s the least lease thing they can do for an American citizen.
HASAN: What does accountability look like? What`s specifically would you want Joe Biden or Antony Blinken to do here?
ABU AKLEH: We would like accountability as and holding the Israeli government accountable, starting with holding the shooter, the soldier who pulled the trigger accountable by imprisoning him, holding the person who gave the order accountable. And also the entire system that perpetuate this kind of violence, this kind of killing, to be held accountable. There needs to be this impunity that the Israeli government continues to enjoy.
HASAN: And you met with members of Congress, today, Pramila Jayapal, Betty McCollum and others, 24/7 it is hundreds of the Biden administration say that there needs to be an independent investigation.
Do you believe members of Congress can put pressure on the government to get this done?
ABU AKLEH: Yes, of course. That is why we are here, that is why we came to D.C. to also thank them for their continuous support and to continue to ask from them to support our efforts to achieving accountability and justice. And most importantly, not only were we not satisfied by the statement that they released on the Fourth of July, and the way that they have been handling shootings murder, but they even senators and members of Congress are also not satisfied. So this should say something. This shows the lack of, the lack of support, the lack of urgency that the U.S. administration has shown the states.
HASAN: Ten seconds left, just tell one thing about your aunt. Just for our audience, just tell us something about your late aunt.
ABU AKLEH: Shireen was full of grace, full of compassion. She was full of love, and she enjoyed life. She was the voice of Palestine, the voice of truth. Shireen, at the end of the day, she was a human being. She humanized the Palestinian story and we owe it to her to achieve justice.
HASAN: Again, we are so sorry for your loss, Lina, and we thank you for taking time out to speak with us. We appreciate it.
ABU AKLEH: Thank you for having me. Thank you, Mehdi.
HASAN: That is all for me tonight. We will be back here again tomorrow. I will be back again tomorrow. I`ll also be doing my show, “The Mehdi Hassan Show” on Peacock, keeping busy.
But now, it`s time for “THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL”.
Good evening, Lawrence.