Updated
Summary
Two Trump aides who resigned on January 6th to testify on what Trump did or did not do while the Capitol was under attack. Attorneys to the former White House strategist waived any defense on his contempt of Congress trial after prosecutors ended their case after just two witnesses. America faces evidence of a White House conspiracy that is proven across the seven hearings. Former Trump impeachment special counsel Barry Berke joins Ari Melber to talk about the January 6 Committee hearing that unearthed more evidence than the two Trump impeachments.
Transcript
ARI MELBER, MSNBC HOST: Welcome to THE BEAT. I`m Ari Melber. And we are tracking a lot of news, including what everybody has their eye on, the January 6th Committee`s primetime hearing. Its final scheduled hearing now two hours away tonight. It`s expected to detail Trump`s deliberate inaction during the insurrection and it comes hour after President Biden got this COVID diagnosis today. We`re monitoring that. The White house says it`s mild symptoms only and he`s taking antiviral medication. He`s double boosted.
You can see the video he shared where he says he feels like he`s doing well. If we can get any update on that you can be sure we will tell you tonight.
Now the chair of this panel, Bennie Thompson, has contracted COVID as well this week, so he will participate in this final primetime hearing tonight virtually.
The focus tonight is on what Donald Trump failed to do and what that says about his criminal mindset. Was this a riot that got out of control or something that he wanted and welcomed, which is why, according to many, he did not try to stop it. Specifically 187 minutes that went as this insurrection raged, as people were hurt, as officers were beaten on camera, and Trump sat in the White House and would not take action, would not intervene, would not do things that really mattered like immediately use his power to activate the National Guard, nor use his indirect power, what is sometimes in political science called the soft power.
If people listened to you, if they`re there because of you and you have a mega phone, in an instant, literally in one minute, he could have tweeted or gone out to the lectern and said, hey, I didn`t mean this. Don`t do that. Calm it down. We all know he never did any of that.
Committee member Adam Kinzinger releasing some new video testimony about all of this today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAYLEIGH MCENANY, FORMER WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: To the best of my recollection he was always in the dining room.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What did they say, Mr. Meadows or the president? And during that brief encounter that you were with them, what do you recall?
GEN. KEITH KELLOGG, FORMER VP NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: I think everyone was watching the TV.
MOLLY MICHAEL, FORMER TRUMP EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT: It`s my understanding he was watching television.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When you were in the dining room in these discussions, was the violence at the Capitol visible on the screen on the television?
PAT CIPOLLONE, FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: Yes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Yes. Parts of this hearing will involve the “duh” portion of events. We`ve had so many nights and so many hearings that have had new revelations. Some of this is what America lived through. Indeed, people who wanted to hold a nice sort of benign opinion of Donald Trump felt surprised that day when he did nothing.
Let me tell you something, many, many other people were not surprised because they viewed the intentional violence that calls to authoritarian fascism as of a piece to what he`d been doing for five years.
Tonight the committee will also highlight the next day`s actions, which we probably know less about, January 7th, including some outtakes that were obtained of recorded remarks when he balked over the course of an hour, quote, “Trump resisting holding the rioters to account, trying to call them patriots,” and also refusing to say the election was over, which again goes to his mindset.
Was this something that was out of control, an unfortunate cascading event, or was it the planned all along?
He was finally pushed to condemn lawbreakers. Aides pressured the president at that point by telling him he might be kicked out of office early. The live witnesses tonight are Sarah Matthews, who we talked about, a former publicist press secretary there, and a National Security official Matthew Pottinger. They actually did resign, unlike so many other Trump aides who stayed to the end.
And another sign on the heat, former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows on Capitol Hill where he was barraged.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Have you heard from the Department of Justice since the —
MARK MEADOWS, FORMER WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: I don`t comment on anything —
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Did you ask for a pardon?
MEADOWS: I don`t comment on anything.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Seeing these hearings does it change your mind about what you went through with President Trump?
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Do you watch the hearings?
MEADOWS: I don`t comment on anything on January 6th.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Even in the no comment you get a little peek of revelation. It`s not that he doesn`t comment on anything. It`s not that he has some policy. And by the way, there are officials who have big jobs and say they don`t do walk and talk interviews. No, no. He actually made a mistake there. He doesn`t comment on January 6th. Something about that is too hot for him.
Let`s get into it on this big night for America and for the hearings. I have former Watergate prosecutor Nick Akerman and “New York Times” editorial board member Mara Gay, both with us here on set on the big night.
Welcome to you both.
NICK AKERMAN, FORMER ASSISTANT SPECIAL WATERGATE PROSECUTOR: Thank you.
MARA GAY, THE NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL BOARD: Thanks for having me.
MELBER: We look at that two hours or 187 minutes. It matters to the public. It matters to anyone who would want a president who defends the country. Does any of it matter legally as the DOJ told us they`re watching these hearings?
AKERMAN: Well, of course it matters legally because I think what he was doing — I mean, they talk about his inaction, but his whole plan was inaction. He wanted those rioters to get into the Capitol to stop the count of the electoral college vote and probably also to get Vice President Pence out of there, and whisked away by the Secret Service who have since destroyed their texts that probably relate to this.
[18:05:14]
But that was the plan, was to keep that violence on. So it wasn`t just inaction. It was also a part of a plan to stop the vote.
GAY: Yes, I mean, I think what we`re going to see tonight is there`s the legal case, and then there`s also the political and moral case, and I do anticipate that we`ll see a strengthening of that case. The point here is that this is really about the president`s intentionality and not just his mindset, but his continued mindset throughout those 187 minutes. So you can`t say, oh, it was a single mistake. Maybe I said the wrong thing on Twitter or I went too far.
No, you see the violence. You see police officers and others being beaten to defend American democracy, and those who practice it, and if you`re the president of the United States, you think that`s a good time to either join them, according to previous testimony, or sit down and watch some TV, it seems. And so that tells us a lot about how he was using the violence politically.
And that`s really what`s important here. This is not something that just got out of control. This was essentially his plan B, so if he couldn`t get the electors to switch sides and put him into the White House, even though he didn`t win the election, then maybe if you use some violence, you know, you can kind of persuade people who otherwise wouldn`t have been persuadable. It`s an insult to democracy and to Americans.
MELBER: And Congresswoman Luria who`s on the committee saying this late today. Let`s take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ELAINE LURIA (D-VA): If you were president, wouldn`t you just jump into action? Wouldn`t you call everyone in your administration, your Cabinet who could, you know, come in and help quell this and monitor the situation carefully? He really sat in relative isolation and didn`t take action, even at very strong urging of the people around him.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Nick, this is really striking because it`s what everyone lived through that day, but it made less sense, as I alluded to in our introduction for those who wanted to have a benign view of maybe didn`t pay as much attention to how he led, how he spoke, what he called for.
Now that we know so much more it makes sense. And in fairness there may have been people in government who didn`t it was that bad and thought, well, now he`ll do something. What do you think will come through as they present this tonight? And as a trial, if it was a trial, presentation or trial lawyer, how do you take something that also the jury might say, well, OK, I know this now. How do you enliven it or show the import?
AKERMAN: Well, I think the biggest piece of evidence that they`re going to show is the one we talked about when the committee first subpoenaed Trump`s presidential papers. And those are the outtakes that were done on his statement that he`s ultimately made. If you listen to that again, which I did today, I mean, that in itself is pretty outrageous. He talks — he lies about the fact that he won by a landslide, that he won the election, and that basically it was stolen from his supporters.
All of that`s a lie, and he basically wishes them well. But I mean, I don`t know what`s on these other outtakes. They`ve got to be a lot worse. I mean, this must wind up being a complete confession of some sort once you put all these together, and that`s what I`m going to be watching for tonight.
I mean, I`m going to be standing by and standing on waiting for that to come out, to paraphrase Donald Trump, and see exactly, you know, what this evidence shows, because I think it`s going to be a blockbuster.
GAY: It always does seem to be a blockbuster, right? I mean, it seems worse every time, every hearing, than we could have possibly have imagined. You know, I also just — I think that the people who are willing to come forward has been a source of hope, I think, for many Americans. The things that happened that day were horrific. I think Trump`s willingness to use violence was a new line that he broke that day, and so I do think there are Americans who looked at that and were disappointed or shocked, I guess, to your point, though many of us were not.
But I am heartened every time I see more witnesses come forward. People who left the Trump White House, we`ll hear from tonight, and I do think that gives them some credibility because — as well, additional credibility because they left at the time seeing that violence, realizing this was not the right thing.
MELBER: Yes.
GAY: So we`re going to hear from some people who did the right thing.
MELBER: Yes.
GAY: And that`s always heartening. You hear from one good public servant after the other, people who are risking their reputations, and in some cases, their privacy, if not safety to come forward. So it`s high stakes and even though I think the production value is high and certainly it`s shocking, it`s great TV, it`s also just a really sad story about the night and the day that our democracy was under attack.
[18:10:07]
MELBER: Yes, the other big news, Nick, has been the Secret Service. It`s now a criminal probe into how evidence was destroyed. DHS doing that watchdog work. What do you make of this? As a Watergate prosecutor you`re no stranger to the fact there can be the bad guys inside government even at high levels. In fairness, many Secret Service agents are out there daily risking their lives. They will take a bullet, and a lot of Americans appreciate that.
On the other hand, it`s the DHS itself, their bosses — it`s not me saying this — it`s the DHS saying it looks like there might be crimes inside the Secret Service. Why? Why would they even go that far?
AKERMAN: Well, the big issue here, as I alluded to before, is that if the ultimate goal was to stop that electoral college count to get Vice President Pence out of the Capitol, get him as far away as possible so that the count couldn`t go on that night, that is what the Secret Service would want to cover up big time, if that`s what happened. And we do know there`s a guy, Tony Ornato, who was a Secret Service agent that Trump basically put in a political position in the White House, who was right in the middle of what was going on that day.
MELBER: Right, so it`s sort of — to make a rough and nerdy analogy, it`s like when you hear about a Trump guy Clark at DOJ trying to break rules to help him, and you hear about another Trump guy Ornato at service, yes, they got in there. The president can install all kinds of people. They were loyal to him in that way but it might not represent the whole Secret Service corps.
And it seems to me, if you want to Secret Service to be able to do its job honestly, fairly, and bravely, you have to get any bad apple out of there.
I got to fit in a break. But it`s interesting getting that update from you. We`re going to be watching tonight. I want to thank Nick Akerman and Mara Gay for kicking us off on a special night.
Then we turn to something else. Steve Bannon actually owning Steve Bannon. I`m going to explain exactly what happened in court today. My breakdown when we`re back after our shortest break, in 60 seconds.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEVE BANNON, FORMER CHIEF STRATEGIST TO DONALD TRUMP: Of any person in the Trump administration, Stephen K. Bannon has testified, what, 30 hours in front of the Mueller Commission, I think 20 hours in front of Schiff in the House Intelligence Committee. Over 50 hours of testimony. Every time the exact same way. Executive privilege, a lawyer was engaged. They worked it out.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Steve Bannon discussing his past testimony on the court steps today after a rough day for him at this criminal trial. The judges rejected Bannon`s repeated efforts to try to delay the trial or bring in some new defenses, after prosecutors have made the bold move — this is the Garland DOJ — those prosecutors just rested their case yesterday after calling just two witnesses, a show of confidence.
It puts pressure on Bannon`s team to respond with their own case or witnesses. And remember, Mr. Bannon had vowed to seize on this very case to go after Speaker Pelosi and to put Democrats through hell and go on offense.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BANNON: I`m telling you right now, this is going to be the misdemeanor from hell for Merrick Garland, Nancy Pelosi, and Joe Biden. We`re going to go on the offense. We`re tire of playing defense. We`re going to go on the offense on this, and stand by.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: OK, stand by. That was the threat. That was the vow. And maybe some Bannon or MAGA supporters believed it then or even believe it now. But today shows none of that was true. Bannon has the right to mount a defense at trial or not and to present relevant witnesses so he can provide evidence that helps him, try to go on offense to some degree legally by mounting a defense but today showed none of that is happening.
It was all talk. This is the news tonight. While the DOJ`s case was short, Bannon`s case it turns out is zero. No defense.
[18:15:02]
Today his lawyers actually made it official. They are folding. They will not call any witnesses or mount any legal defense, and that means Bannon`s lawyers rested, which sparked the judge confirming this directly with Mr. Bannon, the defendant, that he is waiving the option and right to testify in his own defense. Bannon responding yes, your honor.
Now, there is a strategy here. In court, the burden is on the prosecutors to prove their case. They must come up with enough evidence. The defendants don`t have a burden in the system to prove anything or to provide witnesses or evidence, so this has become this week a kind of legal game of chicken. The DOJ prosecutors confidently conveying to the jury that they`re basically arguing Bannon`s guilt is so obvious it could be proven in two days with two witnesses. Simple.
Now, Bannon`s defense is rebutting that by trying to convey to the jury that they think there`s actually nothing to debate here, no details to discuss, because they argue it`s not about facts. The whole trial is just political persecution. And they are basically, as a legal strategy, hunting for one sympathetic juror who may share that doubt, and Bannon is presumed innocent and the jury will have the last word as always.
But let`s be clear. For a man who spent months huffing and puffing about going on offense, not defense, well, today, the fact is he did neither. Declining to even play defense.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BANNON: We`re going to go on the offense. We`re tire of playing defense.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:21:19]
MELBER: The final insurrection hearing is of course tonight. It`s the capstone of a congressional process that`s actually done something rare, captivate an often polarized and exhausted nation. Consider while evening news broadcasts have a couple million viewers, there are tens of millions of viewers that we have seen tune in time and time again for these hearings. Millions more viewers in discussion goes online.
Here`s Google data that shows the search spike for January 6th hearing. Around each of them overall searches about January 6th were actually flat for most of this year until the hearings began, and then you can see the most common — first of all, you can see on the right that huge spike. That`s when these recent hearings began. And the most common related questions are, when is the next hearing? Suggesting people are literally just looking to tune in and get more evidence.
The same Google data shows the interest is highest in places like Iowa, Montana, and Wyoming, the home of, of course, Vice Chair Cheney. Another way that this is all breaking through off the coasts and even among independents and some conservatives. Many Americans reacting to revelations in their communities and online. We`ve even highlighted some of those voices sounding off online and on TikTok.
And it may suggest that for all the references to Watergate there is a kind of national reckoning here. The Watergate process is deemed to have worked with congressional hearings playing a key role along with prosecutors, like Leon Jaworski and Richard Ben-Veniste, following the evidence that revealed a criminal president trying to kneecap the very Justice Department within which they served.
And that makes it pretty interesting. We want to note this tonight that take those veterans like the one I mentioned, Watergate Task Force chief Ben-Veniste is speaking out. He says this attorney general must follow the facts but decide soon and once and for all whether to indict Trump. He does not have forever. Ben-Veniste also has experience as a member of another acclaimed nonpartisan probe, the 9/11 Commission. And as we go into our hearing coverage, he is our special guest on this big news night.
Welcome, sir.
RICHARD BEN-VENISTE, WATERGATE TASK FORCE CHIEF: Great to be here, Ari.
MELBER: How much time does the attorney general have to make this decision?
BEN-VENISTE: Well, there is no specific time requirement, but I suggest in the piece you mentioned that he ought to be able to make a decision about whether there`s enough evidence to indict Donald Trump in six months` time.
MELBER: Why six months?
BEN-VENISTE: Just on the basis of what he has to do, what`s already been accomplished. Look, he`s not starting from a dead stop. He has been monitoring, his Department of Justice prosecuted any number of individual who took place — who took part in the January 6th melee for their violent activities. Some of them have cooperated. He`s working his way up the chain. And I think within six months he should have enough to decide.
MELBER: And that`s what you lay out given your extensive experience. Here`s what the attorney general has just said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MERRICK GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL: No person is above the law in this country. I can`t say it any more clearer than that. There is nothing in the principles of prosecution, in any other factors which prevent us from investigating anyone — anyone who is criminally responsible for an attempt to undo a democratic election.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[18:25:03]
MELBER: In your view, if the evidence does all the way tie back to Donald Trump at a criminal level, would it be dangerous to leave that uncharged or not dealt with because of nonlegal reasons like, well, how it would look or that he may be running for office again?
BEN-VENISTE: It would not be within the remit of the attorney general to make that decision. He ought to make that decision based on the facts, based on the evidence, based on the determination of whether he can present the case in court that will convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Donald Trump is guilty of criminal activities.
MELBER: Hmm. And we mentioned some of the interest in this. Much has changed in the nation since Watergate, especially in how people can get information.
BEN-VENISTE: Sure.
MELBER: As we go into the final hearing tonight, how do you compare the way these hearings have met the moment or tried to break through with the public, which is part of what Congress` job is when you have oversight and investigative hearings, as compared to your extensive experience during Watergate?
BEN-VENISTE: I think there`s a direct analogy. The Senate committee in Watergate did a phenomenal job. They got John Dean to talk extensively. They got Alexander Butterfield to reveal the existence of the secret White House tapes. They provided a foundation upon which we built, as prosecutors, putting any number of individuals in jail for their crimes. We were at the point after Nixon had left office, had resigned in disgrace the presidency, the first to do so, and then we would decide what would become of now citizen Nixon.
So, in that sense, we had the same question before us. And we were united in our view on the staff of the special prosecutor`s office that Richard Nixon should be prosecuted. Now, Donald Trump is in a different posture obviously, but our view was that if the facts supported it, it was our obligation to move forward. President Ford took that decision away with his pardon of Richard Nixon, and he paid a price for it.
The wisdom of his decision is still something that historians will debate. But we don`t have that situation with Donald Trump. There is no pardon in the offing as a preliminary matter, a decision must be made by the attorney general. If there is evidence to present to a grand jury requesting an indictment, then probably a grand jury will follow that advice. And then it will be up to the process to reveal the facts, because a grand jury`s activities will be secret, as they must be.
And I have confidence that Merrick Garland is a very capable person. He`s a very honest person. And those who are clamoring for an immediate decision I think may be somewhat shortsighted, that Garland needs time to use the tools of a prosecutor in moving the case forward, and building a case if there`s one to build.
MELBER: Yes. Yes. No, it makes sense.
BEN-VENISTE: Congress has limited capabilities. The committee, the January 6th Committee, has done a phenomenal job in putting that evidence together and putting it before the public.
MELBER: Right, well, and coming from you —
BEN-VENISTE: It`s so compelling.
MELBER: Coming from — yes, the experience you — I mean, that`s something going into tonight that you feel that way having served, again, in that chief role in the Watergate prosecution and the 9/11. And we will see what other evidence they come forward with tonight.
Mr. Ben-Veniste, thank you so much.
BEN-VENISTE: Well, thank you.
MELBER: Appreciate it.
Turning to a point on programming, in a report on “PRISONS AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE” last night, I incorrectly said that 22-year-old Kalief Browder died at Rikers Prison. He attempted suicide while incarcerated at Rikers but actually took his own life after leaving Rikers but actually took his own life after leaving Rikers. It`s important to correct the record and I regret the error.
[18:30:00]
Wanted to tell you that. Let me tell you what else is coming up tonight. We have a special report on how these hearings have unearthed even far more damning Trump evidence, then the impeachment trials with a very special guest and explained that. It`s going to really bring us into the coverage tonight and it puts Trump of course at the center of these plots.
We also have a report on the hearings moving. Many Republicans and even some Republican DOJ veterans to say what we were just discussing with that Watergate prosecutor, when is it time to indict a former president?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:35:18]
MELBER: Donald Trump has clearly been placed at the center of the plot for a coup that would benefit him, which may seem pretty straightforward. But here`s what it`s not always straightforward and polarized America. Top conservatives saying some of this evidence is damning and that people need to deal with the facts, including lawyers who literally spend their careers on this.
That includes George W. Bush`s former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and some of the people that Fox News relies on to give their viewers and anchors expert legal advice. We`ve even seen some of this get a bit more direct over time as the hearings have put Mr. Trump on blast.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALBERTO GONZALES, FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: I think one might make the argument that there`s certainly the beginnings of a case for seditious conspiracy, obstruction of Congress. I have to believe that folks from Trump World are very concerned and very nervous right now.
BRET BAIER, HOST, FOX NEWS: The testimony in and of itself, is really, really powerful.
JOHN ROBERTS, HOST FOX NEWS: Sandra, can you still hear?
SANDRA SMITH, HOST, FOX NEWS: Indeed, yes, I am here.
JONATHAN TURLEY, LEGAL ANALYST, FOX NEWS: All of these details should disturb everyone.
NEIL CAVUTO, HOST, FOX NEWS: This just seems to make Donald Trump look awful.
AIDAN MCLAUGHLIN, MANAGING EDITOR, MEDIAITE: Do you expect that we`re going to see Trump prosecuted by the Justice Department on any of these charges?
ANDREW MCCARTHY, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: I do now, yes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: That last voice speaking to Mediate as a former Reagan prosecutor who has been on Fox News for years, Mr. McCarthy. And so, at the end of the day, you see something that has happened over and over in Washington as well as America. Sometimes what would seem impossible becomes very possible and then quite probable, at least according to Mr. McCarthy.
It`s a measure of how these hearings are breaking through. Now, after the break, I`m going to show you right now. I promise you it is worth saying because we all know this is a big night for America, for the Congress, and these hearings, and we`ve been working on something about why this is breaking through, why these matters, and the mounting evidence. It`s our special report for you as we ramp up to primetime hearing night, and it`s next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:42:03]
MELBER: Here we go. This final insurrection hearing begins in about an hour. It caps an investigation that`s taking testimony from over 1000 witnesses, many of them more than once. Some of them live. Because that Trump-fueled insurrection was a historical rarity. Some of this process, the whole thing, is unusual as well.
Let me tell you what I mean — example, this — all of this is an investigation of conduct that a president was already impeached for, on the very precise charge of incitement of insurrection. These hearings have gone on to unearth more damning evidence than that impeachment. Which brings us to our special report for you right now.
That quick trial, march the first impeachment of a president after leaving office as well. And that`s a damning distinction for Donald Trump because, by definition, virtually any impeachment of a losing president for trying to overthrow their losing election will run up against the time that he or she is out of office. In this case, because he lost, so he had to go, and then the accountability process continued after he was out of government.
Well, it`s easy to lose sight of just how fast that process went compared to any other impeachments, let alone a criminal trial for a crime like sedition, which can run over a year. So, here you go, the House impeached Trump for inciting insurrection on January 13th. That Senate trial finished on February 13th, it was a total of exactly 31 days, super-fast.
So that case focused primarily on evidence gathered in that short time, some of it public, focusing often on the most public things like how Donald Trump publicly said tweeted and then assembled and inflamed that crowd on January 6th.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: On January 6, we know who lit the fuse.
REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): The evidence will show you that he assembled inflamed, and incited his followers to descend upon the Capitol.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We are going to the Capitol, where our problems are.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The truth is usually seen and rarely heard. Truth is truth whether denied or not.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: The argument focused on Trump`s words on January 6th, which meant the Senate and then the nation was presented with a somewhat narrow case that fixated on Trump`s speech, and whether it rose to the legal level of incitement. And Trump defenders actually were sometimes eager to jump on that to try to narrow the whole discussion, debate, or legal analysis into one of rhetoric or speech criticism.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RASKIN: Donald Trump surrendered his role as commander in chief and became the insider in chief.
[18:45:00]
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That issue is, did the 45th president engage in incitement of — they continue to say insurrection.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now, some have said that President Trump`s remarks, his speech on January 6 was just a speech. This was not just a speech.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The whole storyline that Donald Trump calls this by his speech has fallen apart.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: President Trump whipped the crowd into a frenzy exhorting followers if you don`t fight like hell —
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Speech, just the speech. Was it his speech? Was it legal incitement? If you remember our coverage, asked whether it was legal incitement of violence, we covered at the time how that`s a very high bar, which is different, say than obstructing a proceeding or whether you were pursuing a coup.
So just as the first impeachment was sometimes cast as this phone call debate, the second one was often limited to this speech today. The House Democrats and their lawyers also stressed the wider legal constitutional obligations of a president. Take the acclaimed Attorney Barry Berke, who is counsel for both Trump impeachments.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARRY BERKE, FORMER TRUMP IMPEACHMENT SPECIAL COUNSEL: It is a requirement that the president be a person who not — who does not risk a national security of this nation and the integrity of our elections in order to further his own reelection prospects.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: That was all the way back in 2019. The accruing evidence shows Trump did both those things Mr. Berke said, attacking national security and election integrity, and did both of them through this plotting to try to stay in office. And a second impeachment drew the most bipartisan vote in history. Seven Republican senators going to convict Donald Trump for his role in that insurrection, which we will be hearing about again tonight.
But these hearings tonight, that hit their crescendo tonight, they`ve gone further than the evidence from those impeachments because they have the evidence that goes beyond any speech or incitement debate to an actual multi-month attempted coup. Trump leading a multi-pronged conspiracy. As prosecutor Andrew Weissmann has put it, orchestrated by Trump and his allies.
So long before the speech, you have the fragile electors, the state-level attempts at voter fraud, trying to involve DOJ, a wider effort leading up to the 6th that was then supposed to crescendo in making Mike Pence break the law. And impeachment, of course, is also about one person in office.
These hearings have been affected by featuring the wider context of Trump officials turning on their colleagues, phoning in the evidence, showing up at depositions, with Trump now accused by his own aides, of making these demands that took efforts from all these other individuals like Roger Stone, and Michael Flynn at that military coup meeting.
And Rudy Giuliani now under new subpoenas. And Jeffrey Clark at DOJ and John Eastman the lawyer. Let`s just focus on the two of them. You have Eastman the coup lawyer who found himself recently searched. Agents seizing his phone, hands on his head. Forced to give up the phone, pursuant to a lawful search warrant which he was shown.
Or that lawyer Clark hit with a search warrant at his own home early in the morning because a judge also found that there was reasonable suspicion of criminal evidence in the home, sadly, of a person who is supposed to enforce the law, not hide criminal evidence. Or you have Steve Bannon declined today to offer any defense in that trial. He now faces up to two years in prison if convicted.
Or Peter Navarro, arrested, searched, and cuffed, which he has complained about vociferously after discussing his role in what he called his sweep, but what looked like a coup, including on MSNBC. You take it together and you have the revelations, the evidence, the wider corroboration, and it is more than a speech it is way more than what Donald Trump said however bad it may have been on that date.
And it is all backed by people in the room who are otherwise completely committed to Trump`s ideological and governing goals.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WILLIAM BARR, FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL: The stuff that these people were shuttling out to the public was bull (BLEEP).
ERIC HERSCHMANN, FORMER WHITE HOUSE LAWYER: I don`t want to hear any other effing words coming out of your mouth no matter what. Other than orderly transition.
JASON MILLER, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN SENIOR ADVISOR: He delivered to the president pretty blunt terms that he was going to lose.
CASSIDY HUTCHINSON, FORMER WHITE HOUSE AIDE: We`re going to get charged as every crime imaginable.
BILL STEPIEN, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN MANAGER: The president`s mind was made up.
HUTCHINSON: They`re not here to hurt me. Take the effing bags away. Let my people and they can march the Capitol from here. Let the people in, take the effing bags away.
PAT CIPOLLONE, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: I didn`t understand how they had gotten in. The first thing I did, I walked in, I looked at him and said who are you?
[18:50:00]
HUTCHINSON: There is ketchup dripping down the wall and there`s a shattered porcelain plate on the floor.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Just about everything you just heard is backed tenfold by those thousand-plus witness depositions, the report we`re ultimately going to get. And it is striking in a time where everyone likes to say, didn`t we know that, and wasn`t as bad, and have we already heard that. This is all new and all well beyond those first two damning impeachments of this president who has had so many legal problems.
Given the aforementioned Mr. Berke, I am thrilled to tell you that here on hearing night, he is my special guest. Barry Berke is a nationally renowned trial lawyer, he served as counsel for both of those impeachments. Welcome back, sir.
BERKE: Thanks, Ari, great to be here.
MELBER: Absolutely. I know you`re at work and you`re making time for us. Speak to that larger point that however hard you worked, and whatever efficacy you had. Indeed, the second trial of Donald Trump had a more bipartisan review than any president in history. But it seems fair objectively to note you were working with less evidence than now. What do you think of what these hearings, this probe is unearthed?
BERKE: I think these hearings have been really extraordinary in terms of how they have built on what we did in the past. Part of it is, they have subpoenas that are enforceable, which plagued both, you know, impeachments and the investigation. There`s now an independent Department of Justice that was prepared to hold people like Steve Bannon in contempt or prosecute him for a crime of contempt.
MELBER: Let`s pause on that and then you`ll continue.
BERKE: Yes.
MELBER: If you had worked with a DOJ that was actually enforcing subpoenas with jail time, you think you would have got a lot more evidence, huh?
BERKE: 100 percent. Because people don`t want to go to jail, they show up and then they tell the truth, or they could be prosecuted. But what did they have gotten is just an extraordinary amount of evidence that not only builds upon what we did in the impeachment but goes even further, right? You know, you quoted me saying that this is someone who put their own personal and political interests over the interests of the country.
MELBER: Yes.
BERKE: That could be an opening statement in the prosecute — criminal prosecution of Donald J. Trump, and it would tie together everything. Everything that happened in terms of telling Brad Raffensperger find 11,000 plus votes that I need or his senior DOJ leadership. Just say it`s fraud, leave the rest of me. Acts that don`t turn on whether there`s a dispute about the election.
There is no defense to that kind of conduct. And when you think of an overarching scheme, to tie together all the evidence, it shows someone who was prepared to put their own interests above that of the country, democracy, ultimately, the safety of their vice president, members of Congress, the police defending them and everyone else. That is a powerful narrative.
And there are many criminal statutes, including interfering with an official proceeding that are prosecuted every day. And I`ve said this, I`ve said this to you. I`ve had clients prosecuted on a fraction of this evidence. So, I think if the question is, could he — did he commit a crime? I would think there`s overwhelming evidence that the answer is affirmative. Could he be prosecuted? I think the answer is absolutely yes.
Then the question is, should he be prosecuted, and I would come back to the through line. He got away with it in the first impeachment, the day after Mueller testified. He called the Ukrainian president to try to interfere with the 2020. That engaged in this conduct, not only specific deterrence of this one person, but because of his conduct, you now have people running for election, based on the promise they`re going to interfere with future elections.
And you have to send the message that if you commit a crime, as a public official, or a former public official that interferes with our most sacred rights as a democratic, you know, country, that is the right to have free and fair elections and that the winner will be actually the candidate who had the most votes. You have to prosecute people who commit crimes to interfere with that, regardless of whether they`re public officials.
MELBER: We had about 45 seconds and then we`re going to bring in Rachel and the team`s special coverage. If you put inciting the violence to the side, do you still see provable crimes against Trump?
BERKE: 100 percent. They`re very basic crimes. Interfering with an official proceeding is the most obvious. Congress was certifying a vote on January 6, and you saw steps — every step of the way that he took to interfere with that and he became more and more desperate when he sent out the texts that cause people to come to Washington and then purposely incited on. That is not the crime. That is the culmination of the crime. Every step of the way as part of the scheme to do that. I think the evidence that is now overwhelming.
MELBER: Yes, you`d lay it out. How late are you working tonight?
BERKE: Well, I was waiting for you. I get to go home now and see the family. Thanks for having me.
MELBER: Yes. All right. You get out of that office. All right. We appreciate that. Because I know you`re working which is why we have you on remote. Mr. Barry Berke, counselor to impeachments walking us through this tonight. Thank you. With Rachel Maddow taking over at 7:00 p.m. Eastern. We`re going to fit in a break. We`ll be right back
[18:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MATTHEW POTTINGER, FORMER DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR: One of my staff brought me a printout of a tweet by the president. And the tweet said something to the effect that Mike Pence the vice president didn`t have the courage to do what he — what should have been done. I — I read that tweet and made a decision at that moment to resign. That`s where I knew that I was leaving that day once I read that tweet.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: That`s why he resigned, not because it was a tweet, but because it was in his view. This witness will hear from, another call to overthrow elections, to put on pressure for violence. Tonight, we`ll go through the 187 minutes of Donald Trump`s inaction. Our special coverage begins at 7:00 p.m. meaning in this moment, led by Rachel Maddow and our whole team. So, keep it locked right here as we hand it over to Rachel for this special coverage of the January 6th primetime hearing.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)