Updated
Summary
The January 6 Committee live hearings expose every way Donald Trump tried to achieve goal of staying in power and the willful blindness of the people around him. Rep. Jamie Raskin joins Hayes to talk about the Pat Cipollone testimony. Rolling Stone reports Trump`s inner circle increasingly views Mark Meadows as a likely fall guy for the former president`s attempts to overturn the 2020 election. On Monday, a judge in Georgia ordered Sen. Graham to appear before the Fulton County grand jury on August 2 but Graham asked a federal court to block that subpoena, and a judge just agreed with him at least temporarily. The January 6 hearing lays out Trump world`s consciousness of guilt. The man was charged with raping a 10-year-old who traveled to Indiana to seek for abortion.
Transcript
JOY REID, MSNBC HOST: Just as a global matter, all of these kinds of things don`t help our credibility around the world. Peter Beinart, you`re great. Thank you very much. I appreciate you.
PETER BEINART, COLUMNIST: Thank you.
REID: And that is tonight`s REIDOUT. “ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES” starts right now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST (voiceover): Tonight on ALL IN.
PAT CIPOLLONE, FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: I walked in. I saw General Flynn. I saw Sidney Powell. The Overstock person — I don`t think any of these people were providing the President with good advice.
HAYES: Team Normal`s top lawyer finally comes to terms with reality.
CHRIS WALLACE, FORMER HOST, FOX NEWS: Can you give them a direct answer you will accept the election?
DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I`ll have to see. Look, you — I have to see.
HAYES: Tonight, committee member Jamie Raskin on Pat Cipollone`s revelations and Donald Trump`s culpability for all of it.
REP. LIZ CHENEY (R-WY): President Trump is a 76-year-old man. He is not an impressionable child.
HAYES: Then, why Trump`s lawyers think Mark Meadows is going down. One of the reporters who broke that story joins me live. And it was a rough day for a couple of other Trump world figures trying to stay out of court.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why is the senator from South Carolina calling the Secretary of State in Georgia anyway?
HAYES: When ALL IN starts right now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES (on camera): Good evening from New York. I`m Chris Hayes. Well, we finally got to hear from Donald Trump`s White House Counsel Pat Cipollone. On Friday, you might remember he spoke to the January 6 Committee behind closed doors for hours, met with him on Capitol Hill. And then at yesterday`s hearing, the committee revealed several clips of his videotaped interview. We`re going to play some of that shortly.
Now, Cipollone his testimony, as far as we can tell, conformed with the broader picture that we`ve now gathered from many, many witnesses, that Donald Trump was dead set on staying in office against the will of the American people by any means necessary. And Cipollone was among those in Trump`s orbit who resisted those efforts in the final days of Trump`s term in office.
Now, to state the obvious, it`s a very good thing that people like Pat Cipollone and Bill Barr and others around Donald Trump resisted his attempted coup. But part of the story they`re telling about how the insurrection came to be is I think, wildly misleading and actually, I have to say, kind of enraging. Committee Vice Chair Liz Cheney clearly feels the same way.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHENEY: Now, the argument seems to be that President Trump was manipulated by others outside the administration, that he was persuaded to ignore his closest advisors, and that he was incapable of telling right from wrong.
The strategy is to blame people, his advisers called “the crazies,” for what Donald Trump did. This, of course, is nonsense. President Trump is a 76-year-old man. He is not an impressionable child. Just like everyone else in our country, he is responsible for his own actions and his own choices.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Now, Liz Cheney said that for a reason. She recognized, I think, a common theme in the testimony from Trump insiders who have submitted to the lawful subpoenas with this committee. Many of them have clearly been attempting to salvage their own reputations, and to kind of exonerate themselves from their complicity in the most severe frontal attack on American democracy since the Civil War. And they`ve been doing that by basically blaming the whole thing on a group of so-called, as she said, crazies.
As Trump Campaign Manager Bill Stepien put it, there was team normal, including himself and people like Pat Cipollone, and Attorney General Bill Barr. And then there was team not normal, made up of people like Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell, and Mike Flynn, and the Overstock guy, the pro- coup forces.
We heard the same derision from Pat Cipollone yesterday when he described the ragtag group of coup plotters who made their way into the White House for an unscheduled meeting in the residence in December of 2020.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CIPOLLONE: I opened the door and I walked in. I saw General Flynn. I saw Sidney Powell sitting there. I was not happy to see the people who were in the Oval Office.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Explain why.
CIPOLLONE: Well, again, I don`t think they were providing — well, first of all, the Overstock person I`ve never met — I never knew who this guy was. Actually, the first thing I did, I walked in, I looked at him, and I said who are you? And he told me. I don`t think — I don`t think any of these people were providing the President with good advice.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Cipollone was equally scornful about the pro-coup team`s plan to have the federal government seize voting machines.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CIPOLLONE: That`s a terrible idea for the country. That`s not how we do things in the United States. There`s no legal authority to do that. And there is a way to contest elections. You know, that happens all the time. But the idea that the federal government could come in and seize election machines, no. That`s — I don`t — I don`t understand why we even have to tell you why that`s a bad idea for the country. It`s a terrible idea.
[20:05:20]
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Cipollone also told the committee the group had no evidence to support their claims of fraud and basically did not believe in facts.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What response did you get when you asked Ms. Powell and her colleagues where`s the evidence?
CIPOLLONE: A variety of responses based on my current recollection including, you know, I can`t believe you would say something, like, you know, things like this. Like, “What do you mean where`s the evidence? You should know.” Yeah, I — things like that or, you know, a disregard, I would say, a general disregard for the importance of actually backing up what you say with facts.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Oh, really, a disregard for backing up things you say with facts? That was the point I almost threw something at the T.V. Pat, buddy, bro, my man, do you know who you worked for? Do you realize who employed you, the guy, the boss, the big guy? Donald Trump, you work for Donald Trump, the most serial liar to ever occupy the Oval Office, the most pathological liar I`ve ever covered in 20 years of journalism. And the people assembled in that room with him on December 18 were there because he wanted to overturn American democracy and declare himself essentially president for life and keep himself in power.
If you do not realize that, you are either stupid disqualifyingly naive, or so incompetent, you should never hold another job. My God. Because Donald Trump was not shy about the fact that he would never accept an election loss. He was quite public about it. He said it before he took office back in 2016.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: Do you make the same today up until you will absolutely — sir, that you will absolutely accept the result of this election?
TRUMP: I will look at it at the time. I`m not looking at anything now. I look at it at the time.
WALLACE: But sir, there is a tradition in this country, in fact, one of the problems with this country is the peaceful transition of power and that no matter how hard-fought a campaign is, that at the end of the campaign, that the loser concedes to the winner — not saying that you`re necessarily going to be the loser or the winner, but that the loser concedes to the winner, and that the country comes together in part for the good of the country. Are you saying you`re not prepared now to commit to that principle?
TRUMP: That I will tell you at the time. I`ll keep you in suspense.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: After he won in the Electoral College, but lost the popular vote by more than 2.8 million votes, Donald Trump claimed immediately the election was rigged. Do you remember that? He tweeted, “In addition to winning Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally. That sort of seems like it`s a disregard for facts and using facts to back up what you say, don`t you think?
And just a few months into his first term, again, we all live through this, OK, Trump launched a commission using the power of the federal government to look into his ludicrous, baseless claims of voter fraud. And of course, they found nothing because they were just generated out of thin air. But that didn`t stop them from doing the exact same thing.
In the run-up to the 2020 election, months before election day, Trump was already planning the idea that there will be widespread fraud.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We have to win the election. We can`t play games. Get out and vote. Do those beautiful absentee ballots or just make sure your vote gets counted? Make sure because the only way we`re going to lose this election is if the election is rigged. Remember that. It`s the only way we`re going to lose this election.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: OK, I want to make sure he said that time and time again, the only way you lose if it`s rigged, right? So, there`s two options. Either I am elected, or it`s rigged. Either way, I win. That`s what he said up. That`s what he said time and time again. And then once again, just as he did back in 2016, he refused to say he would accept the results if it were defeat.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I think mail-in voting is going to rig the election. I really do.
WALLACE: Are you suggesting that you might not accept the results of the election?
TRUMP: I have to say, look, Hillary Clinton asked me the same thing.
WALLACE: No, I asked her the same thing in the debate.
TRUMP: No, no, but — and you know what? She`s the one that never accepted it.
WALLACE: I agree.
TRUMP: She never accepted her loss and she looks like a fool.
WALLACE: But can you give — can you give a direct answer you will accept the election?
TRUMP: I have to see. Look, you — I have to see. No, I`m not going to just say yes. I`m not going to say it. And I didn`t last time either.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: So, Pat Cipollone sitting in that room December 18 with this ragtag group of crazies and he`s like, whoa, how did I get here? This is so nuts. They don`t seem to believe in facts. That`s Donald Trump`s position in the elections. It`s pretty goddamn consistent from 2015 to 2016 to 2020. Donald Trump gets to run the country. He wins forever in every election because either he wins and gets more votes or because he doesn`t, and he stays in power anyway because it`s rigged.
It was obvious to anyone with a brain cell paying attention over the past several years. Pat, time and time again, Trump said it out loud publicly on national television. And just because some people like Pat Cipollone, who again defended the president, worked for the president, helped him get his agenda done, just because Pat Cipollone lied to himself and collaborated with this monstrous sociopath who almost ended American democracy, it doesn`t mean it was a hard thing to see.
[20:10:45]
That does not mean it was bad advice that resulted in Donald Trump almost leading in person a fascist coup to sack the Capitol. A coup was the plan from the beginning. It was either victory or a coup. Those are the two options. Donald Trump plotted it more or less out in the open. And all the allegations of voter fraud, the ludicrous, you know, viral conspiracy theories, the constitutional loopholes, they tried to explode — exploit, they weren`t just pretexts for the coup. The coup was Donald Trump wins because that`s what he believes Donald Trump is owed.
There is something deeply enraging about watching all these supposedly serious and well-credentialed, smart, ethical people, the team normal people, the professionals, the adults in the room who did the right thing and council Donald — council Donald Trump the right way, being so disturbed and aghast and bewildered and surprised that it turned out the way it did, that the alleged facts and the evidence were not really there. The President was trying to do something illegal with these weirdos.
Of course, he was. It`s a good thing they realized at the very end, but it`s a bad thing it took them so darn long. The big question is if this pattern of bizarrely willful blindness to the obvious truth is right now repeating itself at the Department of Justice where top officials were reportedly just jolted into discussing Donald Trump`s conduct more openly following Cassidy Hutchinson`s explosive testimony.
Congressman Jamie Raskin serves on the January 6 Committee who was one of the leads in yesterday`s hearing, and he joins me now. Congressman, first, just on the note that I started the show on. I wonder if you`ve also notice this sort of strange, willful naivete that is coming from some of the people in the inner circle, who are giving I think, forthright and truthful testimony. But I wonder like, do you think they really didn`t see what was happening until they did?
REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): Well, that`s a tough question of, you know, personal psychology for each of these people. But I`m with you in that we have, you know, somewhat depreciated the meaning of heroism when we call someone a hero just for not participating in a violent insurrection, or not supporting the efforts of a coup to overthrow an election.
I mean, that`s really the least we should be expecting of public officials. We should be asking these people actually to blow the whistle publicly. I mean, they could have gotten in touch with Senator McConnell. They can get in touch with Speaker Pelosi. They could have gone to the newspapers and TV to say, there`s something very troubling happening here.
And I think that we may be hearing some more about people who actually tried to do that. I think one thing that was a little underplayed yesterday, which I hope will get more attention, Chris, is this employee at Twitter who was effectively a whistleblower for democracy who was saying that in their estimation, there was going to be a nightmarish cataclysmic event of violence, and they could not really move Twitter to do anything about it, and therefore they were not able to bring it to broader public attention.
So, that`s another one of the things that our committee is going to have to consider with just extraordinary power of the internet, to convey ideas and to convey facts and to convey logistics. What do we do about people who use it for the most dangerous purpose as possible?
HAYES: Yes. I was struck by that as well. And to me, it fit with a whole line of evidence that has been presented by the committee which is different people having some foreknowledge, some inkling, some sense of where this was all going, even as people on the outside didn`t really or failed to appreciate it.
But people on the inside up to an including, you know, Stop the Steal organizer Ali Alexander texting about the President`s going to happen — go to the Capitol. It was pretty known in certain circles.
[20:15:00]
RASKIN: Yes. And I mean, certainly, those people who are in the FBI and the law enforcement community should have been able to put all of these clues together. Now, none of that is to excuse in any way what Trump`s mob did, what the domestic violent extremist groups did, or Trump`s efforts to force Pence to nullify Electoral College votes in this coup.
You know, we don`t want to be in a situation where we`re blaming the victim. But that`s obviously one of the things that we`ve got to look at going forward. What are the early warning systems that we can put into place? And then, how do we fortify ourselves in terms of our electoral institutions or political institutions, against coups and insurrections and political violence going forward?
HAYES: I want to ask a question about Pat Cipollone and his testimony and play a clip for you. It was clear –and there are several moments as shown in the videotape of his deposition where he doesn`t want to tread on what he views as privileged conversations with the President. I want to play you a sort of example this and then ask a question. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHENEY: Were any steps taken, including the president himself telling her she`d been appointed?
PAT CIPOLLONE: Again, I`m not going to get into what the president said in the meeting. You know, my recollection is you`re not appointed even — you`re not appointed until steps are taken to get the paperwork done, get – – and when I left the meeting, OK — I guess — I guess what I`m trying to say is I`m not going to get into what the president said or want — said he wanted.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: So, you then ask a follow up question. This is about Sidney Powell being appointed special counsel basically the saying, Well, did Sidney Powell think she`d been appointed? And he kind of answered that. And I wonder how present this privilege concern was in Mr. Cipollone`s testimony?
RASKIN: Well, Mr. Cipollone, you know, in fairness to him, was based on the idea that he did not want to communicate any information about conversations he had with the President, advising the President about the execution of his duties. And I think that he was sincere in advancing that view, but he was willing to testify about other kinds of conversations that took place.
I mean, it seems clear to me from all the evidence that we`ve received that Trump did try to anoint or appoint Sidney Powell Special Counsel, which was a perfectly ambiguous description of her role. It`s not even clear whether that meant in the White House or in the Department of Justice, or roving in the executive branch. But it seems as if Trump imagined that she would have the power to seize election machinery in swing — in swing states and then initiate criminal prosecutions of people that they saw as getting in their way just to show you how extreme this was. I mean, this was very much Banana Republic stuff.
I did find Mr. Cipollone`s suggestion that well, it wasn`t a real appointment, because there`s other paperwork you have to go through, a little bit amusing given the Trump administration`s general advocacy of the unitary executive theory, which is that, you know, (SPEAKING FOREIGN LANGUAGE), in the minute that the President says something, then that is the law. And certainly, Sidney Powell thought that she had been appointed on that day when Donald Trump said make it so.
HAYES: Yes, I will also say there was something very relatable about that testimony for anyone who has ever worked and had a boss. The power of the “yes boss, right on it, boss” that was — and then you just forget about it. In this case, a good — a good deployment of that strategy.
Congressman Jamie Raskin, thank you very much.
RASKIN: You bet.
HAYES: Still ahead, new trouble for Trump`s old chief of staff even though the Justice Department has declined to charge Mark Meadows with contempt of Congress, at least thus far. The attorneys in Trump world apparently think Meadows will be the fall guy for January 6. The reporter who broke that news and it`s fascinating, he joins me next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:20:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHENEY: Miss Hutchison, did the White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows ever indicate that he was interested in receiving a presidential pardon related to January 6?
CASSIDY HUTCHINSON, AIDE TO FORMER WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF MARK MEADOWS: Mr. Meadows did seek that pardon. Yes, ma`am.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: As we`ve seen in the January 6 Committee hearings, Donald Trump`s chief of staff Mark Meadows was a key figure in the plotting and the execution of the attempted coup. And we know that as evidenced by his apparent pardon request he was aware of his own legal jeopardy.
New reporting today from Rolling Stone suggests his legal troubles may be worse than we knew, “Trump`s inner circle increasingly views Meadows as a likely fall guy for the former president`s attempts to overturn the 2020 election. Members of Trump`s legal team are actively planning certain strategies around Meadows downfall, including possible criminal charges.”
Asawin Suebsaeng is one of the reporters who broke that story for Rolling Stone, and he joins me now. Asawin, what did you learn?
ASAWIN SUEBSAENG, REPORTER, ROLLING STONE: Well, an important bit of context for this reporting is that the Trump World-based hunt for a patsy or a scapegoat when it comes to January 6 and the events surrounding it is in full swing. If you talk to people in — on Donald Trump`s legal team and in his inner legal and political orbit, they will tell you with every breath they can draw about people who they think whose fault it is.
[20:25:25]
And again, we`re going to get to the point later that this was essentially all Donald Trump`s fault. But when they talk about the Rudy Giuliani`s of the world, the Jeffrey cloaks of the world, the Johnny Eastman`s of the world, and nowadays, the Mark Meadows` of the world, they talk about basically how oh, these guys have a lot of criminal exposure. And yes, go ahead and look at what they did.
And to a certain extent, they have a point, however bad faith it is. These guys do have a lot of potential criminal exposure. And when it comes to Mark Meadows, when it comes to what the Department of Justice and or the January 6 Committee on Capitol Hill are looking into, it`s actually more multifaceted than they are letting on right now when it comes to what`s going on in public.
We reported at Rolling Stone today that the January 6 Committee has been grilling multiple witnesses, but Mark Meadows` finances, and his financial agreement and secret arrangements with other Trump advisors as it pertained to trying to overturn the 2020 election.
Now, witnesses came away from this with the clear impression that investigators on the committee were looking for clues or evidence of illegality or misconduct. So, there you have it. His problems could be even deeper than what is publicly revealed at this point.
HAYES: The thing about this, and I`ve seen — you know, there`s been similar things they`ve said about Eastman, right? Like, Eastman and Clark clearly are in some trouble, right? They`ve had search warrants executed by the federal government against them, not a great place to be. I would not, you know, be psyched if like the FBI showed up in my house while I was in my pajamas and like took my phone, OK. So, that`s pretty clear.
Meadows is not there yet, but it also seems to me that like it`s a little foolhardy to think that the DOJ builds cases against these people and that takes the heat off Trump. That`s — it seems the opposite to me.
SUEBSAENG: No, absolutely. And no matter how much Trump`s attorneys and advisors are pricing this into their legal or public relations strategies to try to do everything they can to protect the big guy, there isn`t any good faith or objective standard by which you can ensnare legally someone like Mark Meadows or John Eastman and not directly implicate Donald Trump.
HAYES: Exactly.
SUEBSAENG: I mean, they were only doing these things because Trump ordered them to and wanted them to and told them to, and stay updated regularly on exactly what they were doing. It is as if there were reams upon reams of news footage of Ronald Reagan during the Iran Contra scandal yelling at Oliver North or George HW Bush about why aren`t you doing the Iran Contra scandal harder?
HAYES: Right.
SUEBSAENG: You must hate Trump if you`re not doing the Iran Contra scandal so hard. You`re failing me because Iran Contra hasn`t been finished yet. It`s just — it`s baffling that anybody can actually think that you can get a scapegoat without immediately implicating Donald Trump as the very next – – not even full step but half measure.
HAYES: Yes. And Meadows, I do — I mean, your reporting and that questioning from the committee, I mean, I — you know, I would be nervous if I were him, particularly post Cassidy Hutchinson. We`re going to see how that plays out. Asawin Suebsaeng, as always, great reporting. Thanks so much.
SUEBSAENG: Thank you.
HAYES: Still to come, Senator Lindsey Graham is a “necessary and material weakness — witness, so says a Fulton County judge who ordered Graham to appear before the grand jury investigating election fraud. That story and Graham`s response next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:30:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can you clarify this conversation you had with the Secretary of State in Georgia? Did you or did you not ask him to throw out votes?
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): No, that`s ridiculous. I talked to him about how you verify signatures.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why is the senator from South Carolina calling the Secretary of State in Georgia anyway?
GRAHAM: Because the future of the country hangs in the balance.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: So, it`s easy to forget that South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham was also one of the people helping Donald Trump explore ways to overturn the 2020 election, at least in the early going. Remember, just days after the election, Graham tried to raise doubts about voter signature matches. In fact, he reached out to officials in Arizona and Nevada and Georgia where he spoke directly to the Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.
And because of that, Graham is now subject to a subpoena from the Fulton County District Attorney who impaneled a special grand jury to investigate, and I quote, “coordinated attempts to unlawfully alter the outcome of the 2020 elections in Georgia.” Now, there`s a fair amount of public evidence of interference most notoriously, of course, the January phone call when Trump called Raffensperger and asked him to find the 11,780 votes Trump needed to win Georgia.
Last week, Graham`s attorneys slammed the subpoena saying, “This is all politics. Fulton County is engaged in a fishing expedition and working in concert with the January 6 Committee.” Amazingly, that statement was released at the very same moment that NBC News correspondent Blayne Alexander was actually interviewing Fulton County D.A. Fani Willis. She got to respond to Senator Graham`s accusations in real-time.
[20:35:07]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FANI WILLIS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA: That`s an inaccurate estimation. It`s someone that doesn`t understand the seriousness of what we`re doing. I hope that he`ll come and testify truthfully before the grand jury. I think that people thought that we came into this as some kind of game. This is not a game at all. What I am doing is very serious. It`s very important work. And we`re going to do our due diligence and making sure that we look at all aspects of the case.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: On Monday, a judge in Georgia ordered Senator Graham to appear before the Fulton County grand jury in August 2, calling him a “necessary and material witness.” But Graham asked a federal court to block that subpoena, and a judge just agreed with him at least temporarily and put a stay on the subpoena until a hearing next week.
Now, there has been this torturous process for years of watching Trump and people around him kind of wriggle out from under legal accountability either by defying Congress or just delaying long enough. But it would do well for Senator Graham to remember that Steve Bannon goes to trial next week for his contempt of Congress charges after a judge rejected all his defenses. Bannon is now staring down the possibility of jail time. So, if I was Lindsey Graham, I wouldn`t be so sure about escaping accountability indefinitely.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:40:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHENEY: And one more item. After our last hearing, President Trump tried to call a witness in our investigation. A witness you have not yet seen in these hearings. That person declined to answer or respond to President Trump`s call, and instead alerted their lawyer to the call. Their lawyer alerted us. And this committee has supplied that information to the Department of Justice. Let me say one more time, we will take any effort to influence witness testimony very seriously.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: You can now add a witness tampering to the long list of well, potential crimes now at least attached to the name of former President Donald Trump. The January 6 Committee can`t charge him with any of them. Of course, the Justice Department certainly could. To talk about where that might stand, I`m joined now by attorney and former FBI Special Agent Asha Rangappa and former U.S. Attorney and former Deputy Assistant Attorney General at the Department of Justice Harry Litman.
It`s great to have you both. Let`s start a little bit, Asha, with the — just this witness tampering. This is the second hearing in a row where Liz Cheney ends with a basically very stern warning to those who might want to tamper with witnesses, we`re watching you. What do you make of it, Asha?
ASHA RANGAPPA, FORMER FBI SPECIAL AGENT: Well, Chris, witness tampering is a standalone crime. And I think that`s the big takeaway is that it really doesn`t matter. Anything else that you know happens with regard to January 6, all of these types of processed crimes, obstruction, witness tampering, those kinds of things, if they occur, can happen independently.
But I think this goes to just the bigger question of what is the Department of Justice going to do about it. I mean, look, I think that we can fairly characterize the Federal Criminal Code as Donald Trump`s bucket list, OK. And we can play this parlor game of, you know, how many crimes is he committed, and there`s obstruction and a little like treason and some fraud and, you know — you know, election campaign finance. But none of this really matters if it`s not being actively investigated.
And I think that is the question because the charge piece is really the end of it. The threshold for even investigating is very low. And I think the question is, have they even started that process on any of these fronts, including the ones that the committee is now referring to them like the witness tampering.
HAYES: Yes, so this is — Asha raises the question at the center of all this. And, Harry, I don`t think you need to really read between the lines to see frustration on the part of the committee, right? I mean, that`s — I think it`s pretty clear, right? They feel like they are laying this out for the Department of Justice, that this is clearly criminal conduct.
Now, I should say — and Asha and Chuck Rosenberg, when he was on last time said, you know, there`s different standards here. You know, the committee does not an adversarial process, it doesn`t have the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in terms of what can be entered into evidence, all of that stuff. They`re not doing the thing, right?
But it also seems like I saw this story and I want to get your response to. New York Times: Hutchinson testimony jolts Justice Department to discuss Trump`s conduct more openly. And I was like, I felt a little like I felt the A-block on Pat Cipollone. Like, guys, what are we doing here? Like, you should watch my show. I don`t know what — why in this testimony?
HARRY LITMAN, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: All right, buckle up. Look, first of all, Asha is totally right about this parlor game, and we could go to, you know, a dozen. The obstruction is very interesting, because by free standing, what that means is you could bring a charge possibly against Meadows from last week. I don`t see it against Trump, but it could be an immediate sort of pole vaulting, you know, through the process and really apply leverage, which is what you want to someone who can talk to Trump.
But look, it did jolt them, but we talked about this last time. It jolted them because it took Trump`s potential responsibility from knowingly impairing or delaying a proceeding to involvement with violence. And that brings them to play a half dozen crimes under the Federal Criminal Code. They are very serious ones.
[20:45:19]
The most — you know, one question here is not simply what fits in the parlor game, but what will the American people support. It`s sort of a corollary of if you shoot at the king, you better get him. We want the charge that really captures what people will say happened. Seditious conspiracy is the biggest one that they`re pointing to but the — I just want to say, the committee to date hasn`t stitched that up because they haven`t stitched up the agreement which is so important.
Now, plenty of evidence they`ve brought forward that there was such an agreement. We have Bannon the day before, it`s going to — you know, they`re — all hell is going to break loose. We have actual terrorists changing their behavior on the fourth. We have Trump totally upset. He wants to be in the Capitol because he wants to lead the actual violence and be, you know, not just simply aware of it, but actually orchestrated.
All of that comes within kissing distance of a seditious conspiracy charge. All of these to generalize, they`ll have potential political defenses on the other side. And it`s very important that they get the right one not simply as a matter of proof, but as a matter of social acceptance. And I do think there`s every reason to think they are assiduously working their way through and will do just that process with Trump with the asterisk of will they do anything now with this obstruction charge to sort of jumpstart and go in another direction.
But this is the big game, and seditious conspiracy is the end of the rainbow. But there are other steps in between that they could take.
HAYES: Well, there`s other — I mean, there`s other possible charges, but there`s sort of a technical question before we get to that, Asha, which is like, again, this is almost a bureaucratic question, but an important one. Like, is there basically an investigation open? Like, is there a case file with Donald Trump`s name on it to sort of oversimplify.
And it just still not clear that the case which again, people been calling this forever. Like, the factual predicate needed to do that seems to have been passed, my God, right?
RANGAPPA: Thank you, Chris. I think you just hit the nail on the head. I mean, listen, even if it was working their way up, I mean, all of these threads, the fake electoral scheme, you know, the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, Eastman and Clark, all of these roads should have been like converging and coming to Trump to lead to at least some information or allegation or articulable facts, as you said, to open investigation. It`s a very low threshold. And all that means is we`re just going to look into this further.
And beyond that, Chris, there was evidence — I mean, the Brad Raffensperger phone call. We all listened to this. I feel like I`m in the twilight zone like. I don`t know, if you call the election official and asked him to find fake votes, I`m pretty sure that the FBI would open an investigation on you. It`s the same thing with watching him send an lunatic mob to the Capitol.
So, it`s hard for me to understand how they`re only now being jolted to even talk about criminal liability. And this brings me to, Chris, I really feel like we`re at a stage where the Department of Justice should just announce whether Trump is under investigation. And I know that we say a lot that they don`t comment on investigations, but actually they do — there are exceptions to this in three circumstances.
Number one, if a matter has received a lot of publicity. Check. Number two, if the public needs to be reassured that the matter is being investigated appropriately. Check. Number three, if it`s necessary to protect the public`s well-being and safety. And in this case, you know, we had five people killed, so I would say check. I think they need to just say something.
HAYES: It`s a really an important point.
LITMAN: Chris, may I —
HAYES: Unfortunately, I have to I have to go but I`m going to have you back. I`m going to have you back to talk with her about this.
LITMAN: (INAUDIBLE). They already are investigating.
HAYES: All right, Asha Rangappa, Harry Litman, thank you both. I appreciate it.
Still ahead, how the right keeps trying to cover up the very real consequences for actual children in post-Roe America. That`s next.
[20:50:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HAYES: For decades, the question of whether or not abortion in the case of rape or incest should be legal has mostly been a thought experiment or a polling question, because it tested the most extreme limits of people`s opposition to abortion. And the polling continues to show that overwhelming majorities of people believe that women or girls who are the victims of rape or incest should be able to secure an abortion.
On June 24, the day the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade, that stopped being a thought experiment or a polling question and became a reality. And it then became a question of when because it was always going to happen. Exactly a week after this session — decision, this report about people having to cross state lines to get an abortion appeared in the Indianapolis Star and contain the story of an Indianapolis obstetrician-gynecologist who took a call from a child abuse doctor in Ohio.
This doctor had a 10-year-old patient in the office who was six weeks and three days pregnant. And that 10-year-old girl had to travel from Ohio to Indiana to get an abortion because after the Supreme Court ruling, Ohio had immediately outlawed any abortion after six weeks.
This was a story with a single source, the Indiana OBGYN who talks to the reporter and so some skepticism is fair, sometimes reporting is wrong. Now, we reported that this story had been reported on this program because it seemed credible. It was a first-hand account even if it was anonymous. It also illuminated the very real-world consequences of the legal regime produced by the six-tree court, which is a world where 10-year-olds are forced to carry the rapist child to term unless they can get out of state.
The story was also the centerpiece of President Biden`s remarks on Friday announcing an executive order to help protect reproductive rights.
[20:55:32]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Imagine being a little girl. Just — I`m serious. Just imagine being that little girl, 10 years old. Does anyone believe that it`s Ohio`s majority view that that should not be able to be dealt with or in any other state in the nation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: There then came a sustained effort from the right to discredit this story. Monday on Fox News, Jesse Watters did a lengthy segment to question the accuracy of the story, the truthfulness of the doctor, and the motives of the people drawing attention to it. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JESSE WATTERS, HOST, FOX NEWS: Primetime decided to investigate this alleged child rape. But we quickly found out that authorities in Ohio haven`t even begun a criminal investigation into the rape. This doesn`t make any sense. No one reported this child rape to law enforcement. But if this horrific story isn`t accurate, and the abortion doctor and the Indianapolis Star are misleading us, and the mainstream media and the President of the United States seizing on another hoax, this is absolutely shameful.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Oh, they decided to investigate. Yes, they investigate. Yes, they investigated real good. Watters also interviewed Ohio`s Republican Attorney General David Yost. This is the sitting Attorney General who came on the program, like many in the right, to attempt to escape the implications of his own stated policy preferences.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WATTERS: Have you had anybody come to you in your state to say we`re looking into this, a police report was filed.
DAVID YOST, ATTORNEY GENERAL, OHIO: Not a whisperer. And we work closely with the — we have a decentralized law enforcement system in Ohio, but we have regular contact with prosecutors and local police and sheriff`s, not a whisper anywhere.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Those comments by Yost set off a feeding frenzy on the right. Fox News ran several segments criticizing Biden and the media for talking about the story. Republican Congressman Jim Jordan of Ohio tweeted “Another lie. Anyone surprised?” Tucker Carlson said the story turned out not to be true. The far-right editorial board of the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed glibly titled “An abortion story too good to confirm.” Even more reputable outlets picked up on it.
Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler cued by the reaction of the right, wrote a whole piece sort of questioning the monstrous reality the story titled “A one-source story about a 10-year-old and an abortion goes viral.” A lot of people criticize the Indianapolis Star`s reporting, but it doesn`t seem like many spent a lot of resources trying to confirm it. We`ll never guess what the Star reported today.
“A man has been charged with raping a 10-year-old Ohio girl who`s traveled to Indiana to seek an abortion attracted international attention following the Supreme Court`s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. The man was arrested Tuesday after police say he admitted to raping the child on at least two occasions.”
Police arrested the person confessed to this monstrous crime. Of course, it was hard to get anyone on the record because the victim is a 10-year-old girl whose privacy must be protected at all costs. And the story was exactly what it looked like. Jim Jordan did quietly delete his tweet calling the story a lie. But we now live in a country where thanks to the Republican Party and the six far-right justices, we now force rape victims, even children age 10, to give birth unless they are lucky enough to flee to another state.
And even that is going to get harder and harder. Republicans in Indiana where a girl was able to get an abortion are working to outlaw abortion there as well. The Star also reported today that “Columbus police were made aware of the girls pregnancy through a referral by Franklin County Children`s Services that was made by her mother on June 22.
The decision to overturn Roe was announced two days later on June 24. When the girl`s mother began the process of helping her 10-year-old daughter, she could have gotten an abortion in Ohio. It wasn`t until those justices on the court wrote their decision that this child who had been raped had to flee across state lines like she was the criminal.
There is an enormous unfathomable human tragedy at the center of the story. Thank God this 10-year-old girl did not have to carry this pregnancy to term. And let`s be clear-eyed about what the anti-abortion Republican Party wants. They want a world in which that child would be forced to carry her rapist`s baby. And that is the world and the country they are making.
That is ALL IN on this Wednesday night. “MSNBC PRIME” starts right now with Ali Velshi. Good evening, Ali.